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.
-7.96%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-6.66%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-23.85%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-23.85%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-30.62%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-31.82%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-31.82%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.89%
Share count expansion well above MRVL's 0.52%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.05%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 0.97%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-1.35%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-44.44%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-47.53%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
81.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 114.47%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
18.70%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 5.10%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
39.59%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 2.19%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
153.08%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
4809.05%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
3096.56%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
91.62%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
0.61%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
148.69%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
241.19%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 114.72%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
64.54%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 35.56%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
19.19%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 17.12%. 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.
-4.01%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-9.30%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 10.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.24%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.22%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.40%
Debt growth of 0.40% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-2.66%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
14.80%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 7.39%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.