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.
8.43%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
10.14%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
14.71%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
14.71%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
20.85%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
20.00%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
19.05%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
2.79%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.07%
Slight or no buyback while MRVL is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
21.21%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
57.42%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
59.52%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 2.29%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
155.66%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 6.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
152.06%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
95.23%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
223.58%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1599.17%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
94.19%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to MRVL's 97.61%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
84.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 15.89%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
314.22%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 34.24% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
524.18%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
358.31%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
196.87%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 44.05%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
53.67%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
32.92%
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.
61.66%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-0.84%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
16.94%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.38%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.29%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-7.52%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.63%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 2.30%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.92%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MRVL's 83.76%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.