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.
-2.70%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 2.74%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.29%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
4.57%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
-1.29%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
17.55%
Positive net income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
19.84%
Positive EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
19.35%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.61%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.70%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.54%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
102.12%
Positive OCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
130.43%
Positive FCF growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
22.18%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 185.81%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
13.14%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 9.27%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
-4.83%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 34.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
303.61%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 99.28%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
136.80%
Below 50% of QCOM's 337.71%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
103.54%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 72.32%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
136.66%
Positive 10Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
123.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
41.81%
Positive short-term CAGR while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
3.34%
Positive growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-15.44%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-22.54%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
638.34%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 268.72%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
162.46%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 47.99%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
79.33%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 16.76%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-10.64%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 12.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
6.64%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QCOM's 19.72%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.94%
Positive asset growth while QCOM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.45%
Positive BV/share change while QCOM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
3.76%
Debt growth far above QCOM's 0.08%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
0.53%
R&D dropping or stable vs. QCOM's 4.41%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-3.84%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.