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.
-10.89%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 4.20%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.65%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 6.65%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-17.85%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 7.41%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.75%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 7.41%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-14.51%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-13.94%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-13.77%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.77%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.76%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
7.68%
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.
-26.17%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-45.60%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
92.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 255.92%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
35.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 154.31%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
43.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 152.98%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
131.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 56.14%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
15.09%
Positive OCF/share growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
19.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 25.95%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
812.98%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 243.91% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
520.08%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2153.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
88.83%
Below 50% of QCOM's 506.82%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
63.37%
Positive growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
53.31%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
68.54%
Below 50% of QCOM's 292.17%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
487.06%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 200.36%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
99.82%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 31.79%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
37.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 26.42%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
-7.11%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 48.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
14.68%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 17.04%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.41%
Similar asset growth to QCOM's 4.24%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
1.26%
Under 50% of QCOM's 12.44%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
14.39%
We have some new debt while QCOM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.70%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 6.14%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-0.46%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 4.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.