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.
2.05%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
3.38%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
8.35%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
8.35%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
11.66%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
10.00%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
12.82%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.66%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.29%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.98%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.30%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
105.33%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
134.07%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
115.98%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 164.65%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
30.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 23.64%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
47.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 31.16%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
336.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 140.64%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
555.72%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
21.18%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 155.54%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
293.57%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 56.15% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
51.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
87.03%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 14.98%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
266.85%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 116.41%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
70.01%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 41.51%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
19.74%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 16.60%. 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.
-15.87%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
18.33%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.58%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.61%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.77%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MRVL's 2.29%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.44%
Debt growth of 0.44% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
2.40%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.50%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 5.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.