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.
40.34%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 4.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
43.22%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.73%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
101.58%
EBIT growth similar to MRVL's 109.98%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
101.58%
Operating income growth similar to MRVL's 109.98%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
114.23%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 41.54%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
108.33%
EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 40.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
110.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 40.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.75%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
3.49%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 1.51%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-2.34%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.11%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
148.91%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 104.89%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
176.32%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 151.81%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
140.01%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 44.52%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
112.09%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
105.29%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
55.57%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 6.19%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
111.44%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
204.65%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
400.09%
Below 50% of MRVL's 1280.26%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
243.06%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
392.86%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
183.48%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 45.02%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
51.19%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
33.04%
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.
51.76%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.12%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
29.35%
AR growth well above MRVL's 3.88%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
30.33%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
28.83%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.80%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
17.96%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.54%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
101.92%
Debt growth of 101.92% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
6.57%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
8.92%
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.