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.
-0.35%
Negative revenue growth while QRVO stands at 14.88%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.52%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QRVO's 8.76%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-16.03%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-5.08%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-4.78%
Negative net income growth while QRVO stands at 76.55%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.81%
Negative EPS growth while QRVO is at 76.58%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.90%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QRVO is at 75.33%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.20%
Share count expansion well above QRVO's 0.12%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.10%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.00%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-42.68%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-47.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
54.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 31.22%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
24.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QRVO's 31.22%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
23.53%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QRVO's 31.22%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
107.34%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 351.29%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
102.79%
Below 50% of QRVO's 351.29%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
86.39%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 351.29%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
179.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
330.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
121.75%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
36.24%
Below 50% of QRVO's 327.19%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
10.06%
Below 50% of QRVO's 327.19%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
8.51%
Below 50% of QRVO's 327.19%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1145.59%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1145.59% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
193.66%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.66% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
66.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 66.64% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.52%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QRVO's 29.37%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.96%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QRVO's 6.60%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-2.76%
Negative asset growth while QRVO invests at 1.38%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.38%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QRVO's 0.55%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-6.95%
We’re deleveraging while QRVO stands at 0.02%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.58%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QRVO's 9.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
6.81%
SG&A growth well above QRVO's 12.99%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.