PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
2.06%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 2.89%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
4.38%
Gross profit growth at 75-90% of QCOM's 5.61%. Bill Ackman would demand operational improvements to match competitor gains.
10.11%
EBIT growth below 50% of QCOM's 32.39%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
9.21%
Operating income growth under 50% of QCOM's 32.39%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
7.23%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
6.98%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.21%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.31%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.06%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
62.24%
OCF growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 123.03%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
76.64%
FCF growth under 50% of QCOM's 205.88%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
101.87%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 176.21%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
27.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 8.89%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
20.00%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 10.02%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
336.00%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
164.88%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
79.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 32.07%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
578.69%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 412.25%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
118.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
70.62%
Positive short-term CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
24.55%
Positive growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-7.32%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-8.78%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
602.36%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 93.85%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
155.50%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 77.67%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
102.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 29.84%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-1.46%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 6.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.44%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 1.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.34%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.17%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 6.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.10%
Debt growth far above QCOM's 0.10%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
0.26%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 3.07%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.45%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 8.94%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.