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.
-2.97%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 7.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-5.44%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 7.08%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-40.46%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 34.18%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-40.46%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 34.18%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-47.91%
Negative net income growth while MRVL stands at 17.13%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-47.92%
Negative EPS growth while MRVL is at 14.29%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-47.92%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MRVL is at 23.08%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.71%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.84%
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.
-102.24%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 187.52%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-110.44%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 362.59%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
16.48%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 556.40%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-3.71%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 27.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
22.63%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 62.90%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-113.86%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 1547.43%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-102.64%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 271.41%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-105.71%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 46.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-46.70%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is at 348.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-59.84%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 281.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
126.44%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MRVL's 190.48%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
262.34%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 103.55%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
79.80%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 54.76%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
62.83%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 40.18%. 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.
22.32%
AR growth well above MRVL's 2.48%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
0.71%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.80%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.69%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.84%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.39%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 0.27%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.75%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 3.45%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.