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.
-10.86%
Negative revenue growth while AVGO stands at 9.97%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-11.74%
Negative gross profit growth while AVGO is at 10.28%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-24.42%
Negative EBIT growth while AVGO is at 9.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-24.42%
Negative operating income growth while AVGO is at 9.02%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-22.60%
Negative net income growth while AVGO stands at 879.56%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-26.67%
Negative EPS growth while AVGO is at 850.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-20.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AVGO is at 873.33%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
7.05%
Share count expansion well above AVGO's 0.49%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-2.88%
Reduced diluted shares while AVGO is at 0.47%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.79%
Dividend growth under 50% of AVGO's 80.61%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-60.89%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-65.97%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
109.76%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 655.55%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
117.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 454.90%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
65.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of AVGO's 102.64%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-15.88%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AVGO stands at 22087.20%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
3285.57%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 446.49%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
76.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of AVGO's 117.88%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
250.47%
Below 50% of AVGO's 54095.93%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
772.59%
Below 50% of AVGO's 2890.40%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
250.74%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1003.92%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
167.49%
Equity/share CAGR of 167.49% while AVGO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
48.77%
Below 50% of AVGO's 517.18%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
38.98%
Below 50% of AVGO's 344.02%. 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.
65.72%
Below 50% of AVGO's 427.61%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
18.16%
AR growth well above AVGO's 0.45%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.40%
We show growth while AVGO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.38%
Negative asset growth while AVGO invests at 0.23%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.59%
We have a declining book value while AVGO shows 24.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-21.52%
We’re deleveraging while AVGO stands at 0.25%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.31%
R&D dropping or stable vs. AVGO's 11.71%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
5.11%
SG&A declining or stable vs. AVGO's 50.00%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.