PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.59M (Avg.)
37.73 | 5.46
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
9.84%
Net income growth similar to MRVL's 10.34%. Walter Schloss would find parallel expansions or market conditions in both firms’ profitability.
13.44%
D&A growth well above MRVL's 4.30%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
42.53%
Some yoy growth while MRVL is negative at -62.61%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
-100.00%
Negative yoy SBC while MRVL is 13.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
100.69%
Slight usage while MRVL is negative at -75.68%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
47.52%
AR growth while MRVL is negative at -174.34%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
21.88%
Some inventory rise while MRVL is negative at -76.29%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
176.03%
AP growth well above MRVL's 259.69%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
137.09%
Growth well above MRVL's 159.52%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
318.64%
Some yoy increase while MRVL is negative at -97.90%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
119.08%
Some CFO growth while MRVL is negative at -5.58%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-16.21%
Negative yoy CapEx while MRVL is 41.96%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-84.23%
Negative yoy purchasing while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-98.97%
We reduce yoy other investing while MRVL is 209.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-206.54%
We reduce yoy invests while MRVL stands at 47.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
259.87%
We repay more while MRVL is negative at -9.79%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
-2.54%
Negative yoy issuance while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
53.75%
We have some buyback growth while MRVL is negative at -16.67%. John Neff sees a short-term advantage in boosting EPS unless expansions hamper competitor.