PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Texas Instruments Incorporated (TXN)
205.980.01 (0.00%)
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
-3.77%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 13.41%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.59%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 12.93%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-25.49%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 32.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-26.18%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 32.78%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-29.30%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 35.26%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-29.11%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 35.85%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-28.57%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 33.96%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.43%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.42%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x QCOM's 1.67%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.43%
Dividend growth at 75-90% of QCOM's 0.50%. Bill Ackman would press for a stronger return if the balance sheet allows.
-58.05%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-65.34%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
103.42%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 352.05%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
38.18%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 94.91%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
17.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 38.23%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
557.38%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
25.82%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-8.46%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
339.00%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 572.40%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
54.62%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 91.27%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
14.40%
Below 50% of QCOM's 53.67%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
23.29%
Below 50% of QCOM's 319.12%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
27.79%
Below 50% of QCOM's 92.48%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
21.98%
Below 50% of QCOM's 46.73%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
526.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 526.91% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
332.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 332.92% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
30.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 30.81% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
3.29%
Our AR growth while QCOM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
10.39%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 8.71%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-0.68%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 2.35%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.75%
Under 50% of QCOM's 8.13%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.65%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 2.13%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
1.54%
We expand SG&A while QCOM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.