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.
18.86%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of AVGO's 28.68%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
21.26%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x AVGO's 4.18%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
70.38%
Positive EBIT growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
70.38%
Positive operating income growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
44.48%
Positive net income growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
45.61%
Positive EPS growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
43.86%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.24%
Share reduction more than 1.5x AVGO's 9.44%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.52%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x AVGO's 9.37%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.78%
Dividend growth under 50% of AVGO's 16.85%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
29.44%
Positive OCF growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
53.05%
Positive FCF growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
652.53%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of AVGO's 829.36%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
120.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AVGO's 83.30%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
132.18%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 62.24%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1555.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AVGO's 1058.30%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
97.70%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to AVGO's 100.36%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
218.43%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 39.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
2520.23%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 444.72% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
61.17%
Below 50% of AVGO's 149.57%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
121.53%
Positive short-term CAGR while AVGO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
407.76%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1194.06%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
211.82%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AVGO's 168.49%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
86.13%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of AVGO's 164.37%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
113.76%
Below 50% of AVGO's 2063.56%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
6.77%
Below 50% of AVGO's 102.46%. Michael Burry worries the firm returns far less capital to shareholders over 5 years.
0.45%
Below 50% of AVGO's 42.45%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
6.61%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. AVGO's 57.55%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-10.62%
Inventory is declining while AVGO stands at 1.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
7.96%
Asset growth well under 50% of AVGO's 144.12%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
10.68%
Under 50% of AVGO's 167.72%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
1.90%
Debt shrinking faster vs. AVGO's 93.48%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-3.94%
Our R&D shrinks while AVGO invests at 66.28%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.28%
SG&A declining or stable vs. AVGO's 276.08%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.