PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
176.45 - 178.59
86.62 - 184.48
124.91M / 173.95M (Avg.)
50.81 | 3.50
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-2.80%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with MRVL at -37.39%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
0.74%
Less D&A growth vs. MRVL's 34.53%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
99.93%
Deferred tax of 99.93% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-99.93%
Negative yoy SBC while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-75.77%
Negative yoy working capital usage while MRVL is 123.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
100.00%
AR growth of 100.00% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
65.49%
Some inventory rise while MRVL is negative at -118.87%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
-100.00%
Negative yoy AP while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-203.16%
Negative yoy usage while MRVL is 123.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
177.25%
Well above MRVL's 17.89%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-66.26%
Negative yoy CFO while MRVL is 260.57%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
2.69%
Some CapEx rise while MRVL is negative at -69.70%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
100.00%
Some acquisitions while MRVL is negative at -970.70%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
27.78%
Some yoy expansion while MRVL is negative at -46.35%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
218.65%
We have some liquidation growth while MRVL is negative at -88.65%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
100.00%
Growth of 100.00% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
90.46%
We have mild expansions while MRVL is negative at -389.15%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative yoy issuance while MRVL is 110.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-149.96%
We cut yoy buybacks while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.