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.
10.12%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 26.60%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
12.17%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MRVL's 25.20%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
6.58%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
6.58%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
10.66%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-11.11%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
6.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
22.61%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.61%
Slight or no buyback while MRVL is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.14%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-92.82%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
57.80%
10Y CAGR of 57.80% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
57.80%
5Y CAGR of 57.80% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
57.80%
3Y CAGR of 57.80% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
172.15%
OCF/share CAGR of 172.15% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
172.15%
OCF/share CAGR of 172.15% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
172.15%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 172.15% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
97.53%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 97.53% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
97.53%
Net income/share CAGR of 97.53% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
97.53%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 97.53% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
202.33%
Equity/share CAGR of 202.33% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
202.33%
Equity/share CAGR of 202.33% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
202.33%
Equity/share CAGR of 202.33% 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.
0.61%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 62.17%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-3.53%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 217.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.36%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 1332.99%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-8.46%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 1941.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.12%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
20.07%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 24.90%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
13.57%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 16.53%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.