PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
17.85%
Positive revenue growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
17.82%
Positive gross profit growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
23.29%
Positive EBIT growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
31.03%
Positive operating income growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-1.96%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 80.56%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-2.65%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 82.93%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-2.03%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 80.49%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.11%
Slight or no buybacks while QCOM is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.22%
Slight or no buyback while QCOM is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.13%
Dividend growth under 50% of QCOM's 5.08%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-16.10%
Negative OCF growth while QCOM is at 72.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-18.43%
Negative FCF growth while QCOM is at 97.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
31.77%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 161.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
23.77%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 19.71%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
-0.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 19.47%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
41.36%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 184.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
13.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QCOM's 26.23%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-9.71%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM stands at 2893.94%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
103.37%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 59.24% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
88.52%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 1.83%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
13.44%
Below 50% of QCOM's 27.96%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
7.90%
Positive growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-7.15%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-18.37%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
644.90%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 242.88%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
163.60%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 38.16%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
79.57%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 13.90%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
18.37%
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.
-3.00%
Inventory is declining while QCOM stands at 37.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.37%
Asset growth above 1.5x QCOM's 1.22%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
8.79%
Similar to QCOM's 9.73%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
0.01%
We have some new debt while QCOM reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.85%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. QCOM's 3.54%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
1.50%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QCOM's 5.80%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.