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.
1.65%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.39%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
44.97%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
40.47%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
75.78%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
78.95%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
76.32%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.88%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 1.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.13%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.37%
Dividend growth under 50% of QCOM's 15.74%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
78.07%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
98.87%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
128.08%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 441.02%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
16.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 93.75%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
30.73%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 62.25%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
221.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 1086.07%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-1.55%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
60.07%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
530.73%
Below 50% of QCOM's 8004.11%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
26.69%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 47.28%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
61.84%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 58.14%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
55.49%
Below 50% of QCOM's 460.06%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
28.39%
Below 50% of QCOM's 99.15%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
34.19%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 68.15%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
707.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 707.91% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
113.40%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 78.52%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
56.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 46.89%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
-0.37%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 5.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.96%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 4.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
5.09%
Asset growth above 1.5x QCOM's 2.20%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.10%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QCOM's 1.29%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
20.99%
We have some new debt while QCOM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.54%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 2.10%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.66%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.