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.
14.76%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.46%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
14.50%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
13.53%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
13.53%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
23.16%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-41.67%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-40.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
103.97%
Share count expansion well above MRVL's 18.10%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
104.39%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 6.20%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
126.49%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
418.36%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-5.67%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-5.67%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-5.67%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
414.93%
OCF/share CAGR of 414.93% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
414.93%
OCF/share CAGR of 414.93% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
414.93%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 414.93% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
45.15%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 45.15% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
45.15%
Net income/share CAGR of 45.15% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
45.15%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 45.15% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
7.87%
Equity/share CAGR of 7.87% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
7.87%
Equity/share CAGR of 7.87% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
7.87%
Equity/share CAGR of 7.87% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
18.19%
AR growth well above MRVL's 22.89%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
23.34%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
13.26%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 179.88%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-37.80%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 741.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-28.87%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
12.96%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 27.69%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
20.55%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 25.66%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.