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.
10.89%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
14.06%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
32.73%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
32.73%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
308.03%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
316.22%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
316.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-2.02%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.98%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.07%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
14.72%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
77.85%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
50.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 95.48%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
109.30%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 27.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
75.93%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
278.11%
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.
25.75%
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.
88.16%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
2966.45%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 1921.69% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
1497.30%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
2095.75%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
191.78%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
16.42%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
30.08%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
42.42%
Dividend/share CAGR of 42.42% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
46.49%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while QRVO is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
41.39%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 41.39% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
7.29%
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.
7.14%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
13.46%
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.
16.14%
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.
-86.48%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
0.56%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.71%
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.