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.
18.21%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 1.91%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
20.51%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.45%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
30.09%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 20.53%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
30.09%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 20.53%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
43.74%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 21.14%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
40.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 24.24%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
43.48%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 25.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
1.01%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.79%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.00%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
64.11%
OCF growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 113.52%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
67.13%
FCF growth 50-75% of MRVL's 109.08%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
117.46%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
125.94%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
95.42%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
180.13%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 947.43%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
557.98%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 77.18%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
387.45%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 15.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
227.27%
Below 50% of MRVL's 3818.96%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
313.67%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 225.61%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
340.13%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 80.56%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
135.92%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 46.85%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
38.81%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
37.24%
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.
65.63%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-3.79%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
0.23%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.55%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 2.07%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.29%
1.25-1.5x MRVL's 3.58%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-3.04%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
11.06%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
7.07%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 6.20%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.