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.
2.36%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 9.90%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
5.20%
Gross profit growth similar to MRVL's 5.53%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
27.49%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 21.21%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
27.49%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 21.21%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
23.82%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 16.19%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
21.21%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 18.18%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
21.21%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 9.09%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-5.11%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-4.41%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.27%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-45.08%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 3.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-89.56%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 13.55%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
74.38%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 318.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
3.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 17.60%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
17.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 18.03%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
320.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 127.66%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
13.07%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
174.85%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
227.65%
Below 50% of MRVL's 556.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
175.68%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 6.36%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
166.95%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
243.72%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 116.59%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
48.67%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with MRVL's 45.49%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
47.89%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 15.57%. 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.
20.50%
AR growth well above MRVL's 16.34%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
0.18%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 23.89%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-11.31%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 1.62%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-8.86%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 2.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-3.53%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.40%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 4.87%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-0.33%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.