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.
9.16%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 12.58%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
9.87%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MRVL's 58.09%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
9.29%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 87.50%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
9.29%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 87.50%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
3.79%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 77.38%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
4.21%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 77.79%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
3.19%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 77.79%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.24%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MRVL's 0.92%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.24%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MRVL's 0.91%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-0.24%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 1.29%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.36%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 19.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-48.06%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
547.35%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
205.23%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 14.16%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
117.67%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 12.94%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
503.88%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
185.61%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 34.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
204.05%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1243.02%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
291.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
95.27%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 7.71%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
481.97%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 125.59%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
284.93%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 131.44%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
144.83%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 64.32%. 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.
41.17%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 1.32%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
7.12%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 1.54%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
10.26%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 24.52%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
5.63%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 36.79%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
5.13%
Similar asset growth to MRVL's 5.66%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
12.27%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MRVL's 5.44%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-7.68%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
12.69%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 1.32%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.89%
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.