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.
6.07%
Revenue growth above 1.5x QRVO's 2.94%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
7.06%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 4.95%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
12.90%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 62.16%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
13.14%
Operating income growth under 50% of QRVO's 62.05%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
11.74%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
12.59%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
12.86%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.82%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.16%
Dividend growth of 0.16% while QRVO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
15.33%
OCF growth at 50-75% of QRVO's 22.84%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
10.08%
FCF growth under 50% of QRVO's 47.72%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
69.30%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
48.57%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
30.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 150.03%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
169.40%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 78.01%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
106.95%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 78.01%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
57.28%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 89.73%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
275.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
182.32%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
107.02%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
40.20%
Below 50% of QRVO's 112.55%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
7.63%
Below 50% of QRVO's 112.55%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
10.99%
Below 50% of QRVO's 531.95%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
518.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 518.41% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
121.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 121.07% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
82.03%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 82.03% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.19%
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.
1.24%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.25%
Asset growth well under 50% of QRVO's 0.75%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.29%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.02%
Debt shrinking faster vs. QRVO's 10.01%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
1.56%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-10.20%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.