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.
0.06%
Revenue growth under 50% of QCOM's 14.95%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.03%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 15.58%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
6.44%
EBIT growth below 50% of QCOM's 19.64%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
6.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of QCOM's 19.64%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
3.80%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
5.13%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
5.26%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.23%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.50%
Reduced diluted shares while QCOM is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
194294.01%
Dividend growth above 1.5x QCOM's 0.06%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-40.03%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 80.69%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-47.18%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 119.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-5.84%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 695.11%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
28.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 124.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
70.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 69.24%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
61.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 3167.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
49.82%
Below 50% of QCOM's 264.96%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
24.02%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 99.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
112.59%
Below 50% of QCOM's 2954.62%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
11.83%
Below 50% of QCOM's 254.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
213.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 167.88%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
175.31%
Below 50% of QCOM's 760.59%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
2.48%
Below 50% of QCOM's 84.20%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
13.01%
Below 50% of QCOM's 95.38%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
37.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 37.38% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
40.20%
Dividend/share CAGR of 40.20% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.49%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.49% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-13.94%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
9.93%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.53%
Asset growth well under 50% of QCOM's 7.78%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.79%
Under 50% of QCOM's 6.50%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
84.64%
Debt growth of 84.64% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-5.12%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 4.63%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.17%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 19.33%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.