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.
42.26%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 6.48%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
33.62%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 6.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
37.12%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.67%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
37.12%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.67%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
33.01%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.07%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
20.00%
EPS growth of 20.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
25.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 25.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
1.51%
Share count expansion well above MRVL's 0.94%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-0.08%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.94%. 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.
-66.51%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-105.20%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
212.15%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 40.03%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
212.15%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 40.03%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
212.15%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 40.03%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
51.59%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
51.59%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
51.59%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
244.57%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
244.57%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
244.57%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
407.50%
Below 50% of MRVL's 933.31%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
407.50%
Below 50% of MRVL's 933.31%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
407.50%
Below 50% of MRVL's 933.31%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
4.27%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 20.56%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
34.46%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 1.01%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.88%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
14.02%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.72%
Debt growth of 1.72% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
31.33%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 10.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
25.17%
We expand SG&A while MRVL cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.