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.
-5.68%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 5.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.25%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 1.15%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-16.28%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 47.81%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-15.24%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 47.81%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-14.95%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 41.19%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-12.50%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 47.06%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-13.75%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 47.76%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.46%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.88%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.31%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.71%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-61.75%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 62.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-66.59%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 73.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
42.07%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 263.29%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
2.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 86.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
14.67%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 9.19%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
54.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 403.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
22.90%
Below 50% of QCOM's 6065.94%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
67.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 57.80%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
91.38%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 164.62%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
23.77%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 38.35%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
116.01%
Positive short-term CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
37.06%
Below 50% of QCOM's 176.65%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
7.25%
Below 50% of QCOM's 43.72%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-1.77%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
1156.44%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1156.44% while QCOM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
190.22%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 150.73%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
81.56%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to QCOM's 90.61%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
8.93%
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.
6.74%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-3.35%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-1.19%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.05%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
5.23%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
8.89%
We expand SG&A while QCOM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.