PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.59M (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.
-11.16%
Negative revenue growth while AVGO stands at 4.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.27%
Negative gross profit growth while AVGO is at 3.89%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-19.78%
Negative EBIT growth while AVGO is at 21.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-21.40%
Negative operating income growth while AVGO is at 21.85%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-24.91%
Negative net income growth while AVGO stands at 18.46%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-25.00%
Negative EPS growth while AVGO is at 16.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-24.83%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AVGO is at 17.65%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.21%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.21%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
16.89%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while AVGO cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-11.95%
Negative OCF growth while AVGO is at 2.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-13.67%
Negative FCF growth while AVGO is at 3.29%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
48.40%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 702.24%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
14.96%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 132.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
4.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 40.00%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
133.26%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 3103.61%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
54.69%
Below 50% of AVGO's 316.29%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
35.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 83.82%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
117.46%
Below 50% of AVGO's 2497.65%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
45.49%
Below 50% of AVGO's 301.41%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
9.10%
Below 50% of AVGO's 234.36%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
21.96%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1327.27%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-3.83%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AVGO is at 392.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-9.21%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AVGO is at 32.51%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
651.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 651.36% while AVGO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
165.01%
Below 50% of AVGO's 732.53%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
79.91%
Below 50% of AVGO's 396.08%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-19.97%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-1.91%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.14%
Positive asset growth while AVGO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.66%
We have a declining book value while AVGO shows 16.42%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.20%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.85%
We increase R&D while AVGO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.26%
We expand SG&A while AVGO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.