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.
0.00%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 0.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.44%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 4.27%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
7.81%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 29.54%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
7.81%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 29.54%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-6.26%
Negative net income growth while MRVL stands at 39.60%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-3.33%
Negative EPS growth while MRVL is at 35.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-8.33%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MRVL is at 42.11%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.16%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 1.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.03%
Slight or no buyback while MRVL is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
1.66%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.81%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-36.25%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-39.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
116.05%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 238.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
39.07%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 82.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
16.87%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 27.37%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
397.76%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 208.85%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-30.22%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 4.42%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
26.45%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
2133.69%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 407.40% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
219.01%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 188.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
-9.05%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
251.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 125.64%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
87.57%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 56.04%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
25.69%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 17.36%. 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.
18.46%
Our AR growth while MRVL is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-1.49%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 12.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.01%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 3.22%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
3.47%
1.25-1.5x MRVL's 2.66%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
0.44%
Debt growth of 0.44% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
0.86%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
0.08%
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.