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.
-10.60%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.98%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-37.94%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.94%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-34.92%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-34.25%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-34.25%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.72%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.82%
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.
67.96%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
77.88%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
66.43%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 603.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
1.43%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 19.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
74.20%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 51.09%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
650.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 73.42%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
66.63%
Below 50% of MRVL's 858.65%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
1918.95%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
38.55%
Below 50% of MRVL's 163.36%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-33.64%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 157.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
169.09%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MRVL's 229.54%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
371.99%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 97.55%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
93.18%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 56.08%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
52.23%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 36.62%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-9.46%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
6.48%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 14.24%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
9.12%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.59%
1.25-1.5x MRVL's 2.40%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-2.32%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.04%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.23%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.