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.
-0.81%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-0.55%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 7.27%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1.41%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 16.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-1.41%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 16.16%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-3.47%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-5.13%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-2.63%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.33%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.16%
Slight or no buyback while MRVL is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.33%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-37.95%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 214.53%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-42.92%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 300.87%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
184.00%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
139.27%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
53.31%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
15658.45%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
230.39%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 132.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
210.79%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
515.64%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
511.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
74.39%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
322.99%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 75.43%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
157.07%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 29.41%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
105.96%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 63.57%. 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.
90.49%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.08%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
15.23%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.66%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
15.09%
Our AR growth while MRVL is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
15.22%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
34.30%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
6.98%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
196.94%
Debt growth far above MRVL's 0.06%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-0.41%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
2.09%
SG&A growth well above MRVL's 0.36%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.