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.
-3.64%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 6.08%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.17%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 2.97%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-13.26%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 3.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-12.91%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 3.61%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-20.48%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 4.12%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-19.48%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 7.21%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.74%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 5.41%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.21%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.19%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.21%
Dividend growth above 1.5x QCOM's 0.06%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-52.12%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 46.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-57.63%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 51.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
72.62%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 403.95%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
16.03%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 167.64%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
10.46%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 53.76%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
89.65%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 487.58%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
1.26%
Below 50% of QCOM's 92.06%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
48.44%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 34.72%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
159.95%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 279.31%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
17.70%
Below 50% of QCOM's 136.04%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
170.91%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 42.71%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
41.87%
Below 50% of QCOM's 270.53%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
24.85%
Below 50% of QCOM's 83.02%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
2.50%
Below 50% of QCOM's 38.20%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1248.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1248.38% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
182.07%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 147.05%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
99.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 95.21%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
11.88%
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.
3.36%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 20.78%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.12%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.01%
Positive BV/share change while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.09%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
8.68%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.33%
SG&A growth well above QCOM's 4.04%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.