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.
4.40%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.54%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-2.20%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.95%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1.99%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
1.65%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.22%
Share count expansion well above QCOM's 0.09%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.22%
Diluted share count expanding well above QCOM's 0.27%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-0.05%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
54.47%
OCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 20.52%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
319.48%
FCF growth above 1.5x QCOM's 23.22%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
36.34%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 122.85%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
7.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 104.66%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 20.02%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
138.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 196.07%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-10.13%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 386.08%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-25.04%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 23.84%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
93.78%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 79.43%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
-11.27%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 280.98%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-40.93%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 33.90%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
93.15%
Positive growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
108.41%
Below 50% of QCOM's 587.32%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
56.21%
Below 50% of QCOM's 234.31%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
330.83%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 129.63%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
68.63%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 29.24%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
27.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 23.68%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
2.39%
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.
0.56%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.47%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 1.98%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.14%
Under 50% of QCOM's 6.02%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.10%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.18%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 6.68%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.20%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 12.76%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.