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.
30.60%
Some net income increase while MRVL is negative at -6.87%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
1.78%
Some D&A expansion while MRVL is negative at -1.04%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
100.00%
Deferred tax of 100.00% 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.
-100.00%
Negative yoy SBC while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-45.34%
Both reduce yoy usage, with MRVL at -1299.50%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-100.00%
AR is negative yoy while MRVL is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
143.65%
Some inventory rise while MRVL is negative at -230.38%. 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.
107.43%
Growth well above MRVL's 3.03%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
84.10%
Some yoy increase while MRVL is negative at -145.07%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
8.03%
Some CFO growth while MRVL is negative at -219.91%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
20.07%
Lower CapEx growth vs. MRVL's 40.41%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
30.02%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. MRVL's 94.72%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
-25.56%
We reduce yoy sales while MRVL is 423.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
36.43%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. MRVL's 102.46%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
97.13%
Issuance growth of 97.13% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild dilution that must be justified by expansions or acquisitions vs. competitor’s stable share base.
0.49%
Buyback growth of 0.49% while MRVL is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.