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.
11.11%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.33%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
30.72%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
30.72%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
35.16%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
37.93%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
41.82%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.87%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.17%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.02%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
123.95%
OCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 24.01%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
138.47%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 23.63%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
116.11%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 209.00%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
36.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 40.56%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
27.37%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 14.37%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
45077.62%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 183.07%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
53.55%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 16.06%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-2.23%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
507.76%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 179.04% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
61.81%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
7.52%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
244.94%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 122.04%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
74.59%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 48.77%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
17.27%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 16.74%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
19.97%
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.
5.33%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.69%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.47%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 1.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.44%
Debt growth of 0.44% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
0.88%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.90%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 3.98%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.