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.
6.10%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of QRVO's 9.49%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
6.17%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QRVO's 13.89%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
15.50%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 37.38%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
15.25%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of QRVO's 25.38%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
14.66%
Net income growth under 50% of QRVO's 38.78%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
16.67%
EPS growth under 50% of QRVO's 37.21%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
16.92%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of QRVO's 37.21%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.40%
Share reduction while QRVO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.52%
Reduced diluted shares while QRVO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.30%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
71.83%
OCF growth under 50% of QRVO's 184.67%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
82.73%
FCF growth under 50% of QRVO's 271.45%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
52.13%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
6.46%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
12.10%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
48.23%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
24.14%
Positive OCF/share growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
29.91%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
101.43%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1579.49%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
7.87%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1579.49%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
12.80%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1579.49%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
33.75%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
16.21%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-3.10%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
2216987.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2216987.49% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
182.59%
Dividend/share CAGR of 182.59% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
98.80%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 98.80% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
3.28%
AR growth of 3.28% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-6.05%
Inventory is declining while QRVO stands at 6.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-5.66%
Negative asset growth while QRVO invests at 10.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.92%
We have a declining book value while QRVO shows 5.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-15.40%
We’re deleveraging while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-1.25%
Our R&D shrinks while QRVO invests at 0.61%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-7.66%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.