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.
7.36%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of AVGO's 9.07%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
7.77%
Gross profit growth under 50% of AVGO's 21.83%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
2.86%
EBIT growth below 50% of AVGO's 244.32%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
2.86%
Operating income growth under 50% of AVGO's 244.32%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-15.85%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-13.64%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-20.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.55%
Share reduction while AVGO is at 0.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
4.96%
Diluted share count expanding well above AVGO's 0.48%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
15.73%
Dividend growth above 1.5x AVGO's 0.44%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
100.39%
OCF growth above 1.5x AVGO's 40.39%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
108.40%
FCF growth above 1.5x AVGO's 58.55%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
128.82%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 397.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
71.09%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 308.67%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
45.63%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 249.21%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
134.63%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 537.68%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
27.25%
Below 50% of AVGO's 326.80%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
30.36%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 297.38%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
118.48%
Positive 10Y CAGR while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
30.54%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
36.90%
Positive short-term CAGR while AVGO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
217.26%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1202.31%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
52.05%
Below 50% of AVGO's 479.74%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.51%
Below 50% of AVGO's 307.90%. 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.
49.76%
Below 50% of AVGO's 132.85%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-5.78%
Firm’s AR is declining while AVGO shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.65%
Inventory is declining while AVGO stands at 7.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.73%
Asset growth above 1.5x AVGO's 0.43%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
0.65%
Positive BV/share change while AVGO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
6.56%
We have some new debt while AVGO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
4.56%
We increase R&D while AVGO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.92%
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.