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.
1.65%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.39%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
44.97%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
40.47%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
75.78%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
78.95%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
76.32%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.88%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.13%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.37%
Dividend growth of 0.37% while QRVO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
78.07%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
98.87%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
128.08%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 95.48%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
16.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 27.97%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
30.73%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
221.77%
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.
-1.55%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is at 5.08%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
60.07%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
530.73%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1921.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
26.69%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
61.84%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
55.49%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
28.39%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
34.19%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
707.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 707.91% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
113.40%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while QRVO is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
56.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 56.13% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-0.37%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-1.96%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
5.09%
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.
3.10%
Similar to QRVO's 3.14%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
20.99%
We have some new debt while QRVO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.54%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-0.66%
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.