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.
16.30%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 12.55%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
16.08%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 12.39%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
26.27%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 1442.11%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
26.27%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 1442.11%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
24.62%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 188.14%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
157.14%
EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 100.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
150.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 100.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-48.95%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 45.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-49.43%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 7.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-26.53%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 46.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-32.27%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
82.27%
10Y CAGR of 82.27% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
82.27%
5Y CAGR of 82.27% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
82.27%
3Y CAGR of 82.27% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
50.24%
OCF/share CAGR of 50.24% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
50.24%
OCF/share CAGR of 50.24% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
50.24%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 50.24% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
136.25%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 136.25% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
136.25%
Net income/share CAGR of 136.25% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
136.25%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 136.25% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
227.76%
Equity/share CAGR of 227.76% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
227.76%
Equity/share CAGR of 227.76% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
227.76%
Equity/share CAGR of 227.76% 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.
22.63%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 46.33%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
36.78%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
93.88%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 6.05%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
243.60%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
16866.72%
We have some new debt while MRVL reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
9.34%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 20.79%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.71%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 0.37%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.