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.
13.18%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
15.77%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MRVL's 887.87%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
222.37%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MRVL's 84.35%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
222.37%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 84.35%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
846.15%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 83.86%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
746.15%
EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 83.78%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
746.15%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 83.78%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.18%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.62%
Slight or no buyback while MRVL is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.18%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
56.44%
OCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 150.50%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
71.22%
FCF growth under 50% of MRVL's 651.60%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
110.53%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 77.80%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
64.71%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
24.45%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
185.38%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
28.02%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
61.34%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
254.82%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
208.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
35.10%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
211.42%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 65.10%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
64.12%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 1.22%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
8.56%
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.
4.28%
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.
-3.63%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.79%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
6.49%
75-90% of MRVL's 8.55%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
0.43%
Debt growth of 0.43% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
2.81%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.01%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 3.69%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.