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.
7.30%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.98%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
18.97%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
18.97%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
18.22%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.67%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
20.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.35%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.07%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
98.97%
Dividend growth of 98.97% while QRVO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
62.09%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
93.07%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
42.64%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 95.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
109.40%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 27.97%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
29.69%
Positive 3Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
58.50%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 108.03%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
206.80%
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.
117.86%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
161.17%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1921.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
748.99%
Positive 5Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
69.80%
Positive short-term CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
174.56%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
33.59%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
13.44%
Positive short-term equity growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
271.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 271.51% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
247.95%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while QRVO is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
281.54%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 281.54% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.03%
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.
1.06%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.96%
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.
2.22%
50-75% of QRVO's 3.14%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.18%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
4.69%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QRVO's 19.11%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.