205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (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.
17.55%
Some net income increase while MRVL is negative at -18.33%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-0.40%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with MRVL at -0.91%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
11.76%
Some yoy growth while MRVL is negative at -145.50%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
9.52%
SBC growth well above MRVL's 8.67%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
106.69%
Slight usage while MRVL is negative at -405.64%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
157.85%
AR growth while MRVL is negative at -22.72%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-6550.00%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with MRVL at -145.27%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
23.73%
Lower AP growth vs. MRVL's 1401.12%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
87.54%
Some yoy usage while MRVL is negative at -490.94%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
125.00%
Well above MRVL's 15.95%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
102.12%
Some CFO growth while MRVL is negative at -55.89%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
19.25%
Some CapEx rise while MRVL is negative at -11.52%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
61.46%
Purchases growth of 61.46% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
10.50%
Liquidation growth of 10.50% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-2380.00%
We reduce yoy other investing while MRVL is 86.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
73.97%
We have mild expansions while MRVL is negative at -9.93%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
33.24%
Debt repayment well below MRVL's 100.00%. Michael Burry suspects heavier leverage risk or insufficient cash generation to keep pace.
-40.41%
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.
46.25%
Buyback growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 66.16%. Martin Whitman questions partial disadvantage in per-share enhancements if competitor repurchases more.