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.
5.23%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.71%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
0.51%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 38.63%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
6.95%
Positive operating income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
3.85%
Net income growth under 50% of QRVO's 92.34%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
3.83%
EPS growth under 50% of QRVO's 93.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
3.89%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of QRVO's 93.02%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.33%
Slight or no buybacks while QRVO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.32%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.01%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-12.94%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-19.39%
Negative FCF growth while QRVO is at 2.87%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
60.04%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to QRVO's 64.98%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
55.67%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to QRVO's 52.75%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
20.69%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 36.43%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
353.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 1716.10%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
269.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 97.98%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
77.37%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 129.56%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
233.16%
Below 50% of QRVO's 3711.49%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
169.17%
Below 50% of QRVO's 6120.62%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
36.82%
Below 50% of QRVO's 451.38%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
21.69%
Below 50% of QRVO's 311.87%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
13.46%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
1.85%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
677.64%
Dividend/share CAGR of 677.64% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
167.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 167.94% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
64.02%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 64.02% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.02%
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.
-3.32%
Inventory is declining while QRVO stands at 1.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.49%
Asset growth well under 50% of QRVO's 4.91%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
10.30%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QRVO's 1.60%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-12.21%
We’re deleveraging while QRVO stands at 19.29%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.52%
Our R&D shrinks while QRVO invests at 2.39%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
6.78%
SG&A growth well above QRVO's 1.75%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.