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.
2.34%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
1.44%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
10.06%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
9.27%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
-7.68%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-3.85%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-5.29%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-4.04%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
8.69%
Dividend growth of 8.69% while QRVO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-58.68%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-152.53%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
43.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 95.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-12.20%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QRVO stands at 27.97%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
14.04%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
322.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 108.03%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
57.02%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 5.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
29.13%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
2488.56%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 1921.69%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
66.59%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
205.05%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
261.53%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
211.41%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
147.24%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
16.57%
Dividend/share CAGR of 16.57% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
38.50%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while QRVO is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
2.24%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 2.24% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
0.10%
Our AR growth while QRVO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
4.81%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
16.45%
Asset growth above 1.5x QRVO's 1.09%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
27.76%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QRVO's 3.14%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-2.41%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
18.99%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-18.83%
We cut SG&A while QRVO invests at 19.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.