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.
-26.70%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 21.15%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-52.07%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 15.71%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-94.74%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 70.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-94.74%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 70.62%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-93.69%
Negative net income growth while MRVL stands at 69.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-93.48%
Negative EPS growth while MRVL is at 70.08%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-92.31%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MRVL is at 70.08%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
1.07%
Share count expansion well above MRVL's 0.67%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-7.56%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.67%. 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.
-98.63%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-198.48%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
301.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 71.82%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
301.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 71.82%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
301.46%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 71.82%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
114.83%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
114.83%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
114.83%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-42.53%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-42.53%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-42.53%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
684.85%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 574.71%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
684.85%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 574.71%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
684.85%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 574.71%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-12.14%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 24.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
12.37%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 123.71%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.96%
Asset growth at 75-90% of MRVL's 1.28%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
0.64%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.51%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MRVL's 5.41%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
9.02%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 9.77%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-4.20%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 8.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.