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.
1.55%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 13.91%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.04%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 12.65%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-5.71%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 36.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-3.85%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 37.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-2.16%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 8.90%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.27%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 9.16%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-1.54%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 9.69%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.22%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.33%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.06%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-57.51%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 73.29%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-134.00%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 80.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
48.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 145.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
25.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 136.88%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-15.86%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 10.38%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
60.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 190.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
2.07%
Below 50% of QCOM's 322.85%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-59.84%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 125.81%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
106.27%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 141.31%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
2.74%
Below 50% of QCOM's 254.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-45.67%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
81.59%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 3.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
117.02%
Below 50% of QCOM's 513.86%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
18.72%
Below 50% of QCOM's 140.17%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
299.12%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 102.24%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
50.60%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 36.74%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
18.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 24.69%. Martin Whitman might see a weaker short-term approach to distributing cash.
77.72%
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.
3.53%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.93%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 0.76%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.73%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 2.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-5.50%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
5.30%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.83%
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.