PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
6.10%
Some net income increase while QCOM is negative at -46.63%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-1.69%
Negative yoy D&A while QCOM is 5.92%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
-5800.00%
Negative yoy deferred tax while QCOM stands at 1242.86%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
7.69%
SBC growth while QCOM is negative at -8.79%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
46.99%
Slight usage while QCOM is negative at -4094.55%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
74.03%
AR growth while QCOM is negative at -4.62%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
31.67%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 67.00%, indicating lean supply management. David Dodd would confirm no demand shortfall.
68.52%
A yoy AP increase while QCOM is negative at -389.55%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-12.90%
Both reduce yoy usage, with QCOM at -726.94%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
471.43%
Well above QCOM's 65.71%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
34.65%
Some CFO growth while QCOM is negative at -127.83%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-1.63%
Negative yoy CapEx while QCOM is 22.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-174.33%
Negative yoy purchasing while QCOM stands at 49.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
39.84%
We have some liquidation growth while QCOM is negative at -8.35%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-11600.00%
We reduce yoy other investing while QCOM is 344.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-210.13%
We reduce yoy invests while QCOM stands at 160.25%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-79.27%
Negative yoy issuance while QCOM is 159.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
2.39%
We have some buyback growth while QCOM is negative at -17.01%. John Neff sees a short-term advantage in boosting EPS unless expansions hamper competitor.