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.
5.86%
Revenue growth similar to MRVL's 6.36%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
6.66%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 10.52%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
7.80%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 81.51%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
7.80%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 81.51%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
9.06%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 172.18%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
9.26%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 158.48%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
9.43%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 158.48%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.16%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MRVL's 0.45%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.16%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MRVL's 2.61%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
61.61%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
121.34%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
432.02%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
210.95%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
68.26%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
348.22%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
252.22%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 123.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
49.01%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
700.06%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
512.90%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 195.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
27.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
400.49%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 47.06%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
229.15%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 53.18%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
121.37%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 49.30%. 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.
41.32%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
6.51%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-4.60%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 9.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
22.14%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
7.11%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
9.99%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.10%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.42%
We have some new debt while MRVL reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
9.55%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 1.86%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-2.33%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 1.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.