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.
2.97%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 4.29%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
4.03%
Gross profit growth similar to MRVL's 3.82%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
16.31%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.09%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
12.45%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of MRVL's 15.99%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
207.84%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
204.00%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
200.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
4.94%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
5.32%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 1.17%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-7.43%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
59.20%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
136.40%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
36.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 56.20%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
-23.23%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 109.65%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-0.63%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 25.49%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
277.93%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 237.57%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
42.76%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to MRVL's 45.44%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
-5.23%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 63.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
8874.99%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 653.69% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
307.63%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 220.76%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
365.54%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 202.86%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
292.02%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 54.87%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
211.37%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 19.67%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
153.92%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
7.92%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.04%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
29.26%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
-7.85%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
9.79%
AR growth well above MRVL's 11.24%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
8.75%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 4.05%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
11.76%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
7.81%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.82%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 3.89%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.25%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 1.74%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.09%
We expand SG&A while MRVL cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.