205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.59M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
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.
258.74%
Some net income increase while MRVL is negative at -215.55%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
2.36%
Less D&A growth vs. MRVL's 81.97%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
320.25%
Deferred tax of 320.25% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
273.58%
Well above MRVL's 13.35% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
120.00%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 1027.01%, indicating lean supply management. David Dodd would confirm no demand shortfall.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
255.86%
Some yoy usage while MRVL is negative at -65.88%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-214.71%
Negative yoy while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
109.22%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x MRVL's 41.93%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-17.17%
Negative yoy CapEx while MRVL is 9.63%. 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.
11.10%
Some yoy expansion while MRVL is negative at -514.42%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
13.91%
Below 50% of MRVL's 171.93%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
82.81%
Growth of 82.81% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
75.32%
We have mild expansions while MRVL is negative at -1198.62%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
352.94%
Lower share issuance yoy vs. MRVL's 939.34%, implying less dilution. David Dodd would confirm the firm still has enough capital for expansions.
-91.67%
We cut yoy buybacks while MRVL is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.