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.
-4.54%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 13.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.90%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 18.86%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-38.53%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 4.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-38.53%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 4.72%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-413.30%
Negative net income growth while MRVL stands at 5.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-427.27%
Negative EPS growth while MRVL is at 4.35%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-427.27%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MRVL is at 4.35%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-4.63%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-4.63%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
3.93%
Dividend growth of 3.93% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
31.68%
OCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 5620.88%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
71.62%
FCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 570.40%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-5.13%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 4.67%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-15.47%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 4.67%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-15.91%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 4.67%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
85.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 701.90%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
50.12%
Below 50% of MRVL's 701.90%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-19.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 701.90%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-771.93%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is at 75.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-97.66%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 75.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-236.55%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 75.85%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
384.28%
Positive growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
73.59%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
22.61%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
31.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.76% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
1.27%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1.27% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
11.94%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 11.94% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-19.03%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.01%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.48%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.47%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.72%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 14.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-6.80%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 2.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.