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.
8.61%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
11.90%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
22.28%
Positive EBIT growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.52%
Positive operating income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
20.85%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
20.33%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
20.49%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.11%
Slight or no buybacks while QRVO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.11%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.06%
Dividend growth of 0.06% while QRVO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
10.25%
OCF growth under 50% of QRVO's 430.00%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-17.95%
Negative FCF growth while QRVO is at 624.37%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
37.66%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 470.28%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
12.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 65.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-9.62%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QRVO stands at 14.68%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
45.40%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 973.24%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-10.96%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is at 89.78%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-27.88%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO stands at 42.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
91.44%
Positive 10Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-2.12%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-29.28%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
91.46%
Below 50% of QRVO's 744.57%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
96.82%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 1.97%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
43.67%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
332.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 332.01% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
68.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.60% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
27.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 27.39% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.83%
Our AR growth while QRVO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
4.63%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.78%
Positive asset growth while QRVO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.20%
Positive BV/share change while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
4.92%
We have some new debt while QRVO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-1.20%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-7.96%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.