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.
-9.23%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-17.32%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
17.79%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.79%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
40.61%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
36.36%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
36.36%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-6.67%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-6.67%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
7.15%
Dividend growth of 7.15% while QCOM is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-43.00%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-90.98%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-22.52%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 1115.35%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-30.24%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 108.47%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-18.27%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
23879.66%
OCF/share CAGR of 23879.66% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
98.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 113.76%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
-44.59%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 100.41%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
26.28%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 26.28% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
27.72%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-166.64%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
283.66%
Equity/share CAGR of 283.66% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
154.84%
Below 50% of QCOM's 375.14%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
78.94%
Positive short-term equity growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-68.64%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
1.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.81% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
1.65%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.65% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.03%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 0.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-16.82%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 23.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-8.73%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.32%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
1.53%
Debt growth of 1.53% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-13.11%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 1.09%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-22.00%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 19.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.