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.
8.29%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
17.45%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
99.20%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
99.20%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
269.42%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
271.43%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
257.14%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.54%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
3.44%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.54%
Dividend growth of 0.54% while QRVO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
34.92%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
28.24%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-3.87%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QRVO stands at 95.48%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
8.86%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 27.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-19.76%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
64.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 108.03%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-17.74%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is at 5.08%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
4.61%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
151.10%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1921.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
147.51%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-34.10%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
308.57%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
72.15%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-8.05%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
31.93%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.93% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.18%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
5.82%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 5.82% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.69%
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.
-0.50%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.09%
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.
5.01%
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.
-4.68%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
10.38%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.57%
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.