PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
-7.99%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-8.87%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-18.98%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.98%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-12.32%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-9.09%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-9.26%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-3.28%
Share reduction while MPWR is at 1.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.79%
Reduced diluted shares while MPWR is at 7.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.35%
Dividend reduction while MPWR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-54.95%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-66.02%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
75.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 222.69%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
88.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MPWR's 96.30%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
41.12%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 99.81%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1774.64%
OCF/share CAGR of 1774.64% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
311.93%
OCF/share CAGR of 311.93% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
57.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MPWR's 280.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
6975.22%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MPWR's 207.20% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
612.67%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MPWR's 157.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
106.47%
Below 50% of MPWR's 444.73%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
93.88%
Equity/share CAGR of 93.88% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
15.72%
Equity/share CAGR of 15.72% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
6.14%
Below 50% of MPWR's 80.03%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
373.82%
Dividend/share CAGR of 373.82% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
352.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 352.76% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
296.48%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 296.48% while MPWR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.19%
Firm’s AR is declining while MPWR shows 37.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
11.28%
We show growth while MPWR is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.60%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
2.17%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MPWR's 0.18%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.98%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MPWR's 1.05%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.08%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MPWR's 7.09%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.