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.
-2.62%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 10.04%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.50%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 0.38%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-10.66%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-10.66%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-11.50%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-11.76%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-12.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.17%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MRVL's 11.04%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.16%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 10.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 19.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-36.82%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-40.92%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
220.12%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
208.17%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
141.41%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
931.92%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
812.65%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
399.22%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 117.85%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
933.08%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1000.82%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
3674.18%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 101.65%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
202.21%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 127.24%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
103.28%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 56.19%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
87.30%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 70.08%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
102.46%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 18.33%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
53.03%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 18.05%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
36.23%
AR growth well above MRVL's 34.47%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
36.76%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 179.22%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
12.41%
Asset growth well under 50% of MRVL's 113.04%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
13.78%
Under 50% of MRVL's 61.08%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
0.05%
Debt growth of 0.05% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
7.20%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 22.38%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
2.60%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MRVL's 84.89%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.