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.
12.28%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
13.83%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
24.58%
Positive EBIT growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.89%
Positive operating income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
18.19%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
23.46%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
24.05%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.22%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.10%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.22%
Dividend growth under 50% of QRVO's 722.91%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
32.18%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 29.15%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
39.85%
FCF growth 50-75% of QRVO's 76.87%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
46.99%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
21.16%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
24.02%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
407.30%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 32.60%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
41.89%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 32.60%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
34.40%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to QRVO's 32.60%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
107.43%
Positive 10Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
84.05%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
68.48%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
28.66%
Below 50% of QRVO's 123.52%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
6.60%
Below 50% of QRVO's 123.52%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
1.90%
Below 50% of QRVO's 123.52%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1149.23%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1149.23% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
194.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 194.94% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.78% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
7.34%
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.
-3.62%
Inventory is declining while QRVO stands at 3.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.33%
Asset growth well under 50% of QRVO's 7.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
3.48%
Positive BV/share change while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.03%
We’re deleveraging while QRVO stands at 1217.18%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.52%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.64%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.