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
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.
32.37%
Revenue growth above 1.5x AVGO's 6.32%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
30.96%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x AVGO's 4.96%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
37.75%
Positive EBIT growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
37.75%
Operating income growth above 1.5x AVGO's 1.00%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
37.74%
Positive net income growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
33.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
27.59%
Share count expansion well above AVGO's 0.15%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
6.33%
Diluted share count expanding well above AVGO's 0.70%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-49.52%
Negative OCF growth while AVGO is at 9.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-32.08%
Negative FCF growth while AVGO is at 9.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
19.15%
Our AR growth while AVGO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
221.37%
Inventory growth well above AVGO's 8.08%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
28.36%
Asset growth above 1.5x AVGO's 0.60%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-0.76%
We have a declining book value while AVGO shows 5.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-63.33%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
24.19%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. AVGO's 13.26%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
33.33%
We expand SG&A while AVGO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.