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.
-6.85%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-5.06%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-2.78%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.78%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-5.31%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-5.26%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-5.68%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.37%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.67%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 0.04%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
2.02%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-39.53%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-48.79%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
86.02%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 19.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
50.25%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
57.02%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
495.91%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
98.76%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
102.08%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
110.08%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
60.55%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
189.06%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
153.51%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 48.03%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
34.80%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 5.00%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
-0.08%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
53.94%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
3.56%
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.
-5.74%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.55%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-5.76%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.07%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.58%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 0.65%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-1.24%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.