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.
-2.62%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-4.50%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-10.66%
Negative EBIT growth while AVGO is at 74.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-10.66%
Negative operating income growth while AVGO is at 74.77%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-11.50%
Negative net income growth while AVGO stands at 46.71%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-11.76%
Negative EPS growth while AVGO is at 41.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-12.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AVGO is at 45.45%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.17%
Slight or no buybacks while AVGO is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.16%
Reduced diluted shares while AVGO is at 0.72%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while AVGO stands at 0.06%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-36.82%
Negative OCF growth while AVGO is at 25.09%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-40.92%
Negative FCF growth while AVGO is at 25.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
220.12%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 815.05%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
208.17%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of AVGO's 397.59%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
141.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 53.84%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
931.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 2078.22%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
812.65%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AVGO's 571.79%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
399.22%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AVGO's 323.38%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
933.08%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of AVGO's 1301.54%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
1000.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 176.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
3674.18%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 157.53%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
202.21%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1476.74%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
103.28%
Below 50% of AVGO's 344.45%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
87.30%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 11.12%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
102.46%
Below 50% of AVGO's 882.76%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
53.03%
Below 50% of AVGO's 411.61%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
36.23%
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.
36.76%
We show growth while AVGO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
12.41%
Positive asset growth while AVGO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
13.78%
Positive BV/share change while AVGO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.05%
We have some new debt while AVGO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
7.20%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. AVGO's 1.59%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.60%
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.