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.
10.39%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
12.03%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
24.89%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
24.89%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
20.16%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
19.05%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
19.05%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.79%
Slight or no buybacks while QRVO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-1.12%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.76%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
28.75%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
1975.00%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
7.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 95.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
22.96%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QRVO's 27.97%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
61.53%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
45.01%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 108.03%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
48.79%
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.
-12.33%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
99.88%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1921.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
21.43%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
327.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
287.62%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
68.15%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-0.31%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
81.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 81.51% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.12%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
1.53%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.53% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
15.02%
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.
11.93%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.68%
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.
1.11%
Under 50% of QRVO's 3.14%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-4.70%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.05%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.93%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QRVO's 19.11%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.