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.
0.17%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-2.91%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-56.82%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-56.82%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-80.60%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-78.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-78.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.46%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.11%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
16.92%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.89%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-33.74%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-35.65%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
87.92%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 98.22%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
50.48%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
26.33%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
222.52%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
402.48%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-7.16%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-67.45%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
119.53%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-75.01%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
207.45%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 70.42%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
60.50%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 6.13%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
7.51%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
12.97%
AR growth well above MRVL's 6.07%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
0.68%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.28%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-6.78%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.50%
Debt growth of 0.50% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-5.60%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 5.73%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.97%
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.