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 / 6.59M (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.
-3.47%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 9.06%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.47%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 10.69%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.63%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 12.46%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.39%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 12.46%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-11.53%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 37.15%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.81%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 37.17%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-11.56%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 37.77%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.11%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.11%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
4.58%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
15.36%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
93.75%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
40.67%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 129.82%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
22.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 128.45%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.98%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 11.10%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
80.26%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 145.46%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
16.53%
Below 50% of QCOM's 131.59%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-14.12%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 148.86%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
67.62%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 131.46%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
15.21%
Below 50% of QCOM's 519.51%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-42.90%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 5.67%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
86.70%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 0.71%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
94.14%
Below 50% of QCOM's 474.58%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
28.44%
Below 50% of QCOM's 167.38%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
299.73%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 102.75%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
50.84%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 43.14%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
18.30%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 24.99%. Martin Whitman might see a weaker short-term approach to distributing cash.
-7.68%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 33.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
5.38%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 6.69%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.53%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 4.58%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-2.01%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 6.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-6.71%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.55%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.20%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 1.90%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.21%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 14.76%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.