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.
-7.85%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 1.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.35%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-11.23%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.23%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-22.75%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 5.54%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-21.74%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 8.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-23.91%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 5.56%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.77%
Share reduction while QCOM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.00%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
1.80%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-34.44%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-40.57%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
49.18%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
130.13%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 167.47%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
30.62%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 57.43%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
101.41%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 172.05%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
146.61%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of QCOM's 173.18%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
69.41%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 65.81%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
323.19%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 507.04%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
1889.18%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 330.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
68.97%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of QCOM's 78.15%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
181.93%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 41.69%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
25.48%
Below 50% of QCOM's 156.69%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
12.20%
Below 50% of QCOM's 73.15%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
91.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 91.76% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
106.54%
Dividend/share CAGR of 106.54% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
88.39%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while QCOM cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-1.01%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-1.95%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 32.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.29%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 7.43%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.11%
Under 50% of QCOM's 5.74%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.72%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 6.80%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-4.93%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 14.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.