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.
15.31%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
17.74%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
80.64%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
80.64%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
75.63%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
77.08%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
72.92%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.54%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.92%
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.
-9.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-1.54%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
106.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 396.79%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-3.75%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 10.01%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
18.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 9.64%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
46.98%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 888.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-57.43%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 491.17%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
13.76%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
417.74%
Below 50% of MRVL's 874.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-20.89%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 1242.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
72.16%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
297.00%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 105.68%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
69.96%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 51.07%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
72.61%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 28.41%. 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.
-0.08%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
10.80%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
3.11%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.47%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-3.01%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.06%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-16.38%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.