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.
9.36%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
15.92%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
75.90%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
75.90%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
14.77%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-15.38%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-16.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
50.74%
Slight or no buybacks while QRVO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
51.98%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-35.45%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
109.22%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
186.64%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-48.19%
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.
21.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QRVO's 27.97%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
-38.73%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
36.94%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 108.03%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
120.38%
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.
8.97%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
71.28%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1921.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
137.70%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-45.79%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
127.57%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
59.18%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-36.96%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-5.96%
Cut dividends over 10 years while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-4.47%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-34.92%
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.
-4.66%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-1.11%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.81%
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.
-31.13%
We have a declining book value while QRVO shows 3.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.48%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-4.27%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-1.60%
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.