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.
-30.68%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-37.17%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-69.57%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-69.57%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-53.90%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-54.90%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-53.06%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.96%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
7.69%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.15%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
84.39%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
106.23%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
304.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 34.39%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
79.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
39.30%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
4094.80%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
109.19%
Positive OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
55.53%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 53.99%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
438.98%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
260.26%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
142.43%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
244.40%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 76.58%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
95.68%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 18.20%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
85.01%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 35.84%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
89.29%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
42.19%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-35.83%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 8.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
11.15%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.67%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-1.40%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.10%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.94%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.10%
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.