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.
-1.49%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.01%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 3.96%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1.42%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
0.44%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-4.70%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 24.92%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.35%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 29.07%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.35%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 26.74%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.46%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.54%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.15%
Dividend growth under 50% of QCOM's 0.37%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-61.47%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 10.80%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-64.74%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 13.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
62.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 405.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
68.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 157.64%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-5.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 90.17%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
88.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 472.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
117.10%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-3.34%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 5470.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
112.73%
Below 50% of QCOM's 404.80%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
3278.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 438.45%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-21.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 54.09%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
40.88%
Below 50% of QCOM's 342.91%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
36.00%
Below 50% of QCOM's 111.58%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
8.43%
Below 50% of QCOM's 56.59%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1308.17%
10Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 898.50%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if a higher payout growth rate remains sustainable long term.
171.86%
Dividend/share CAGR of 171.86% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
129.32%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 83.59%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
12.64%
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.
-0.98%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.02%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 1.68%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.28%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 3.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
9.58%
We have some new debt while QCOM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.78%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.90%
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.