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 / 6.59M (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.
-8.74%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 13.70%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-1.10%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 11.72%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
3.79%
EBIT growth below 50% of QCOM's 25.38%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
8.77%
Operating income growth under 50% of QCOM's 25.38%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-11.07%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 32.67%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-11.54%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 33.87%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-15.38%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 30.65%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.62%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 0.12%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.04%
Diluted share count expanding well above QCOM's 0.29%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
0.42%
Dividend growth above 1.5x QCOM's 0.16%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-53.76%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-57.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
183.96%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 508.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
23.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 127.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
66.90%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 82.55%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
152.15%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 504.62%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
2.25%
Below 50% of QCOM's 121.32%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
99.54%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1259.23%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 814.16% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-35.21%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 112.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
1638.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 303.29%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
55.33%
Below 50% of QCOM's 406.26%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
23.79%
Below 50% of QCOM's 97.23%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
34.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 63.14%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
776.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 776.07% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
324.16%
Dividend/share CAGR of 324.16% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
54.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 54.27% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.34%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 4.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
3.64%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.38%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 3.25%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.47%
Under 50% of QCOM's 5.53%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-5.49%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
7.38%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 2.59%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.05%
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.