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.
8.56%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.06%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
5.96%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
15.72%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MRVL's 5.13%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
15.72%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 5.13%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
23.74%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.37%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
30.00%
EPS growth of 30.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
26.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 26.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-2.13%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 1.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.94%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 1.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
13.79%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.12%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
146.87%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
169.29%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
106.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 287.20%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
124.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 122.25%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
32.49%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 34.81%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
36087.01%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 151.60%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
2009.64%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 12.63%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-5.39%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
418.14%
Similar net income/share CAGR to MRVL's 445.16%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
194.09%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 300.65%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
-12.16%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
261.31%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 115.78%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
76.00%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 49.39%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
43.76%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 10.33%. 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.
-4.75%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
1.96%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
26.96%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 1.93%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.39%
1.25-1.5x MRVL's 3.79%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
7974.49%
Debt growth of 7974.49% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-1.07%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
12.16%
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.