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.
6.98%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 25.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
7.66%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MRVL's 30.89%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
11.16%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 151.75%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
10.84%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 151.75%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
11.70%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 244.65%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
12.70%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 255.56%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
14.52%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 244.44%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.99%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.44%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.05%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 1.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.75%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
134.52%
OCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 11.63%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
230.47%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 11.74%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
72.02%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1032.69%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
42.89%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 119.84%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
22.19%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 45.35%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
292.55%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 2600.04%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
19.41%
Below 50% of MRVL's 143.91%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
3.03%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 45.83%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
83.88%
Below 50% of MRVL's 5626.55%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
86.72%
Below 50% of MRVL's 302.02%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
32.48%
Below 50% of MRVL's 3040.51%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
16.38%
Below 50% of MRVL's 1411.61%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
15.09%
Below 50% of MRVL's 49.24%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
7.05%
Below 50% of MRVL's 16.75%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
493.84%
Dividend/share CAGR of 493.84% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
784467.57%
Dividend/share CAGR of 784467.57% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
50.12%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 50.12% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.27%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 20.05%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
5.56%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 13.16%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
3.99%
Asset growth at 75-90% of MRVL's 5.30%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
4.19%
50-75% of MRVL's 6.00%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.38%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 10.49%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.44%
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.