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.
7.10%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 19.52%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
15.50%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 12.42%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
17.77%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.77%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
53.51%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
36.00%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
51.11%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
8.15%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
2.06%
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.
-20.37%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-40.62%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
439.39%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 513.47%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
64.09%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 486.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
57.73%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 119.43%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
3325.64%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
350.56%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
20671.08%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
782.52%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 73.47% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
108.79%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
473.30%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1169.28%
Positive growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
144.32%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 26.57%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
61.77%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 26.43%. 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.
18.08%
AR growth well above MRVL's 11.58%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-5.05%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 8.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
5.69%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 16.02%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.54%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-100.00%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 2019.83%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
15.31%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 46.07%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
12.33%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 22.06%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.