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.
5.03%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.75%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
73.22%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
73.22%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
102.27%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
86.84%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
86.84%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.06%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
3.25%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 0.31%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
104.86%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
117.14%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
237.86%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 703.00%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
33.74%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 60.72%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
-29.90%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
2227.34%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 4443.08%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
84.38%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 58.23%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
63.76%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 39.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
359.68%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 138.02% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
67.37%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 99.53%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
-36.47%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 15592.46%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
552.25%
Positive growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
108.65%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 58.22%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
15.59%
Below 50% of MRVL's 47.37%. 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.
-12.70%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-8.55%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 7.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
14.80%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.54%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
8.63%
1.25-1.5x MRVL's 5.85%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
0.13%
Debt growth of 0.13% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
5.40%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 6.14%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
73.15%
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.