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.
0.17%
Revenue growth under 50% of AVGO's 99.94%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.91%
Negative gross profit growth while AVGO is at 11.16%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-56.82%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-56.82%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-80.60%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-78.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-78.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.46%
Share reduction while AVGO is at 41.52%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.11%
Reduced diluted shares while AVGO is at 43.60%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
16.92%
Similar dividend growth to AVGO's 18.16%. Walter Schloss might see parallel free cash flow or payout philosophies.
-33.74%
Negative OCF growth while AVGO is at 31.22%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-35.65%
Negative FCF growth while AVGO is at 38.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
87.92%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 494.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
50.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 295.20%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
26.33%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 295.40%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
222.52%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of AVGO's 414.49%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
402.48%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 54.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-7.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AVGO stands at 104.36%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-67.45%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
119.53%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-75.01%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
207.45%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1318.96%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
60.50%
Below 50% of AVGO's 587.53%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
7.51%
Below 50% of AVGO's 373.54%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
12.97%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. AVGO's 75.19%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
0.68%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. AVGO's 199.39%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.28%
Negative asset growth while AVGO invests at 377.01%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.78%
We have a declining book value while AVGO shows 214.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.50%
Debt shrinking faster vs. AVGO's 281.11%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-5.60%
Our R&D shrinks while AVGO invests at 194.76%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.97%
SG&A declining or stable vs. AVGO's 108.77%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.