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.
8.98%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
13.85%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x QCOM's 1.98%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
55.96%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
34.61%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
52.80%
Net income growth above 1.5x QCOM's 3.70%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
58.33%
EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 3.23%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
58.33%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x QCOM's 3.33%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-4.00%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.43%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.80%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.68%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
58.13%
OCF growth at 50-75% of QCOM's 106.80%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
131.71%
FCF growth 50-75% of QCOM's 247.85%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
-8.26%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 454.09%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
19.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 63.37%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
74.31%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 82.96%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
93.48%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 2572.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
35.53%
Below 50% of QCOM's 181.25%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
148.63%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 322.47%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
107.17%
Below 50% of QCOM's 3132.08%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-49.18%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 132.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
669.14%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of QCOM's 1029.94%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
195.47%
Below 50% of QCOM's 1277.72%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-5.11%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while QCOM is at 67.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
17.24%
Below 50% of QCOM's 88.14%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
63.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 63.48% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
26.48%
Dividend/share CAGR of 26.48% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
9.16%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 9.16% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.15%
Our AR growth while QCOM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-3.45%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 0.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.72%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 2.11%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.31%
Under 50% of QCOM's 1.38%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.22%
We’re deleveraging while QCOM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.40%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 10.53%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.45%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 4.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.