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.
-13.64%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 11.56%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-21.56%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 14.43%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-62.75%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 127.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-62.75%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 127.66%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-61.23%
Negative net income growth while MRVL stands at 117.98%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-60.00%
Negative EPS growth while MRVL is at 119.69%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-60.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MRVL is at 114.76%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-5.32%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 1.76%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.23%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MRVL's 8.67%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-67.48%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 131.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-87.03%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 189.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
320.91%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 117.37%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
320.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 117.37%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
117.89%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 117.37%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
777.42%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 334.23%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
777.42%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 334.23%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
203.94%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 334.23%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
131.30%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
131.30%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-13.73%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
824.39%
Below 50% of MRVL's 5425.82%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
824.39%
Below 50% of MRVL's 5425.82%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
372.52%
Below 50% of MRVL's 5425.82%. 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.
0.81%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 4.52%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
14.30%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 17.78%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.36%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 1.63%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
8.80%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.05%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 26.44%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.38%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 9.23%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-56.97%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 16.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.