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.
9.87%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 7.14%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
16.24%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 6.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
98.75%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MRVL's 23.31%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
98.75%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 23.31%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
85.51%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 26.04%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
76.92%
EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 25.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
76.92%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 22.53%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
6.88%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
2.71%
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.
22750.46%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
696.01%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
273.40%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MRVL's 264.72%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
273.40%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 264.72%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
13.59%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 248.44%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1483.66%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MRVL's 1376.79%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
1483.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to MRVL's 1376.79%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
108.29%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 84.16%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
178.31%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 111.27% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
178.31%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 111.27%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-34.16%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 146.66%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
700.35%
Positive growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
700.35%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
54.06%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 6.44%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-3.62%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 5.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
6.04%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 19.37%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
5.77%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 4.32%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
-0.54%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 4.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-37.06%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 8.49%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-4.35%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 4.82%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.99%
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.