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.
2.60%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
3.58%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 5.28%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
5.30%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
5.43%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
6.10%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
6.45%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
6.56%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.99%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.94%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.43%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
34.65%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
43.00%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
57.57%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 405.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
7.99%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 161.56%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
6.84%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 43.96%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
56.58%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
70.44%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
33.92%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
75.01%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 98.05%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
5.73%
Below 50% of QCOM's 37.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
72.03%
Positive short-term CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
40.58%
Below 50% of QCOM's 259.70%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
22.21%
Below 50% of QCOM's 84.51%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
0.82%
Below 50% of QCOM's 22.51%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1263.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1263.46% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
181.31%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 149.14%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
100.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 93.51%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
2.87%
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.
2.22%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 5.68%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
1.07%
Positive asset growth while QCOM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.60%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
5.30%
Debt growth of 5.30% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-5.33%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 1.70%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.06%
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.