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.
2.34%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 5.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.44%
Gross profit growth under 50% of QCOM's 7.52%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
10.06%
EBIT growth 50-75% of QCOM's 16.23%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
9.27%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 16.23%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
-7.68%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 30.21%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-3.85%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 62.79%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 39.53%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-5.29%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-4.04%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
8.69%
Dividend growth of 8.69% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-58.68%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 464.28%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-152.53%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 249.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
43.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 4626.59%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-12.20%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 555.05%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
14.04%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
322.80%
OCF/share CAGR of 322.80% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
57.02%
Below 50% of QCOM's 416.96%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
29.13%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 109.24%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2488.56%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 2488.56% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
66.59%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1232.55%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
205.05%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 106.35%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
261.53%
Equity/share CAGR of 261.53% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
211.41%
Below 50% of QCOM's 508.47%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
147.24%
Positive short-term equity growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
16.57%
Dividend/share CAGR of 16.57% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
38.50%
Dividend/share CAGR of 38.50% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
2.24%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 2.24% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
0.10%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. QCOM's 12.35%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
4.81%
Inventory growth well above QCOM's 0.79%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
16.45%
Asset growth above 1.5x QCOM's 9.93%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
27.76%
75-90% of QCOM's 33.30%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
-2.41%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 9.68%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
18.99%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-18.83%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 6.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.