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.
-12.12%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 5.30%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-16.95%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 4.23%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-79.40%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-83.45%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-66.33%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 5.30%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-66.18%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 7.14%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-65.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 5.80%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.50%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.49%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
22.98%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QCOM cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-9.73%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 52.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-5.99%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 121.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
103.30%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 405.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
3.27%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 105.41%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
10.62%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 76.93%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
113.57%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 184.60%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-6.01%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 31.36%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
20.95%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 4.22%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
165.64%
Below 50% of QCOM's 506.12%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-56.90%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 9.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-55.02%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 54.85%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
49.55%
Below 50% of QCOM's 464.17%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
35.46%
Below 50% of QCOM's 105.86%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
25.81%
Below 50% of QCOM's 61.23%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
856.00%
Dividend/share CAGR of 856.00% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
109.92%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 80.11%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
76.00%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 47.08%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-24.21%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 16.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-4.92%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 25.61%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.19%
Negative asset growth while QCOM invests at 1.34%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.41%
We have a declining book value while QCOM shows 3.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.07%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-8.21%
Our R&D shrinks while QCOM invests at 14.37%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-5.08%
We cut SG&A while QCOM invests at 25.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.