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.
-10.20%
Negative revenue growth while QRVO stands at 2.92%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-13.82%
Negative gross profit growth while QRVO is at 45.24%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-14.40%
Negative EBIT growth while QRVO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-16.11%
Negative operating income growth while QRVO is at 32.82%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-19.40%
Negative net income growth while QRVO stands at 68.52%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-19.33%
Negative EPS growth while QRVO is at 68.57%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.46%
Negative diluted EPS growth while QRVO is at 68.35%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.22%
Slight or no buybacks while QRVO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.22%
Slight or no buyback while QRVO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.05%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-47.14%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-129.77%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
45.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of QRVO's 58.37%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
5.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 19.86%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-13.52%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
161.49%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 341.64%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-5.20%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-44.30%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
169.54%
Positive 10Y CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-6.31%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-36.13%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
89.97%
Below 50% of QRVO's 318.89%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
105.71%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 3.90%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
69.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 1.70%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
332.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 332.40% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
68.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.60% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
27.51%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while QRVO cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-6.49%
Firm’s AR is declining while QRVO shows 7.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.10%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QRVO's 15.16%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
7.84%
Positive asset growth while QRVO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.29%
Positive BV/share change while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
20.36%
We have some new debt while QRVO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.91%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.88%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QRVO's 27.09%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.