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.
2.24%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
47.23%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
83.58%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
83.58%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
67.24%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
72.41%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
72.41%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
18.75%
Slight or no buybacks while QRVO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
18.75%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-13.45%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-62.05%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-67.65%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-45.13%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while QRVO stands at 95.48%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-35.18%
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.
-24.61%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
1782.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 108.03%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-18.33%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is at 5.08%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
14.77%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-148.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QRVO is at 1921.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-123.65%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-112.54%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
216.59%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
124.69%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
49.26%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-27.60%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-7.16%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-5.66%
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.
4.26%
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.
2.26%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.53%
Negative asset growth while QRVO invests at 1.09%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-16.01%
We have a declining book value while QRVO shows 3.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.24%
We have some new debt while QRVO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.57%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-11.96%
We cut SG&A while QRVO invests at 19.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.