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.
-10.20%
Negative revenue growth while QCOM stands at 15.11%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-13.82%
Negative gross profit growth while QCOM is at 18.35%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-14.40%
Negative EBIT growth while QCOM is at 107.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-16.11%
Negative operating income growth while QCOM is at 107.51%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-19.40%
Negative net income growth while QCOM stands at 85.70%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-19.33%
Negative EPS growth while QCOM is at 86.47%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.46%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QCOM is at 86.36%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.22%
Share change of 0.22% while QCOM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.22%
Diluted share count expanding well above QCOM's 0.18%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-0.05%
Dividend reduction while QCOM stands at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-47.14%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-129.77%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
45.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 126.93%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
5.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QCOM's 123.02%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-13.52%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM stands at 22.59%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
161.49%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 60.39%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-5.20%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QCOM is at 800.37%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-44.30%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
169.54%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 123.21%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
-6.31%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while QCOM is 181.60%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-36.13%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QCOM is 14.53%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
89.97%
Positive growth while QCOM is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
105.71%
Below 50% of QCOM's 592.90%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
69.26%
Below 50% of QCOM's 217.48%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
332.40%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 129.45%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
68.60%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x QCOM's 29.71%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
27.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QCOM's 23.06%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
-6.49%
Firm’s AR is declining while QCOM shows 10.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.10%
We show growth while QCOM is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
7.84%
Asset growth above 1.5x QCOM's 2.15%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
0.29%
Under 50% of QCOM's 6.84%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
20.36%
Debt growth far above QCOM's 0.53%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
3.91%
We increase R&D while QCOM cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.88%
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.