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.
-2.87%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 12.99%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
3.04%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MRVL's 10.91%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
55.04%
EBIT growth similar to MRVL's 58.34%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
55.04%
Operating income growth similar to MRVL's 58.34%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
280.21%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 65.40%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
333.33%
EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 57.20%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
333.33%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 79.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-6.68%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
88.98%
OCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 25.54%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
58.42%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
241.96%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 179.58%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
241.96%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 179.58%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
116.71%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 179.58%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-116.65%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 842.49%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-116.65%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 842.49%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-106.12%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 842.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
53.94%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 104.35%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
53.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 104.35%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
-22.07%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 104.35%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
684.61%
Positive growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
684.61%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
159.52%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
24.58%
AR growth well above MRVL's 13.90%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-10.19%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 19.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.07%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 3.58%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
4.11%
Similar to MRVL's 4.17%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-42.16%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 18.58%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-1.45%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 8.26%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
0.43%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MRVL's 4.07%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.