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.
-6.66%
Negative revenue growth while QRVO stands at 3.46%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.81%
Negative gross profit growth while QRVO is at 8.14%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-18.38%
Negative EBIT growth while QRVO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.60%
Negative operating income growth while QRVO is at 66.04%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-18.76%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-17.86%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-17.86%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.91%
Share reduction while QRVO is at 83.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.81%
Reduced diluted shares while QRVO is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
6.82%
Dividend growth of 6.82% while QRVO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.17%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
6.33%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
160.86%
10Y CAGR of 160.86% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
43.38%
5Y CAGR of 43.38% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
-7.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
168.15%
OCF/share CAGR of 168.15% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
26.50%
OCF/share CAGR of 26.50% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
5.20%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 5.20% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
137.70%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 137.70% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
463.32%
Net income/share CAGR of 463.32% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
-41.46%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QRVO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
117.37%
Equity/share CAGR of 117.37% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
36.69%
Equity/share CAGR of 36.69% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
11.74%
Equity/share CAGR of 11.74% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
2060.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2060.94% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
172.72%
Dividend/share CAGR of 172.72% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
129.94%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 129.94% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-21.06%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
0.29%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QRVO's 1.37%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.59%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-1.31%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-5.98%
Our R&D shrinks while QRVO invests at 4.80%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.86%
We cut SG&A while QRVO invests at 7.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.