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.
-0.42%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-0.96%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.65%
Negative EBIT growth while QRVO is at 810.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.38%
Negative operating income growth while QRVO is at 6.61%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
21.82%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
14.29%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
15.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
4.86%
Slight or no buybacks while QRVO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
5.55%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-7.44%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
71.52%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
221.43%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
2.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 95.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-18.47%
Negative 5Y CAGR while QRVO stands at 27.97%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-10.52%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
17.47%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 5.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
212.82%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
309.18%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1921.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
90.17%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
346.95%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
112.72%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
143.50%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
73.87%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
74.53%
Dividend/share CAGR of 74.53% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
31.98%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while QRVO is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
-9.70%
Negative near-term dividend growth while QRVO invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
16.07%
Our AR growth while QRVO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
9.29%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
19.47%
Asset growth above 1.5x QRVO's 1.09%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
12.42%
BV/share growth above 1.5x QRVO's 3.14%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
16.35%
We have some new debt while QRVO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-4.11%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
10.71%
SG&A growth well above QRVO's 19.11%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.