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.
0.23%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-0.51%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-13.11%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 3.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-10.06%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 3.73%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-10.57%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 3.60%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-8.77%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 3.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-8.93%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 3.39%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.04%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 1.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.95%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 1.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.30%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 12.63%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
80.35%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
166.20%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
173.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 412.98%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
21.32%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 85.92%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
16.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 27.49%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
397.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 20852.21%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
257.54%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 55.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
23.30%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 66.01%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
850.50%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 441.39% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
12.70%
Below 50% of QCOM's 61.16%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
21.68%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of QCOM's 34.48%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
39.50%
Below 50% of QCOM's 362.05%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
20.69%
Below 50% of QCOM's 102.36%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
24.51%
Below 50% of QCOM's 51.75%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
484.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 484.42% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
323.55%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 78.43%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
28.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 34.06%. Bill Ackman wants overhead or revenue enhancements to match competitor's dividend growth.
6.70%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 16.36%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
11.52%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 24.26%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
22.28%
Asset growth above 1.5x QCOM's 3.77%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.19%
50-75% of QCOM's 4.01%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
65.84%
We have some new debt while QCOM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-6.84%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 2.30%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-5.60%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.