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.
-11.53%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 1.34%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
8.99%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
20.44%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
20.44%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
3.66%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 209.30%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
3.85%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 300.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
3.85%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 300.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.48%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.68%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.06%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.48%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-69.13%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 23.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-116.49%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 41.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
393.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 27.70%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
118.57%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 44.55%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
93.37%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 81.86%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
116.55%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 95.20%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
-67.09%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 10.17%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-76.51%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 391.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
226.07%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-21.17%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-25.67%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 112.63%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
353.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 115.82%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
226.49%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 122.03%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
87.08%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 70.16%. 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.
15.64%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.49%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
1.31%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-7.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 7.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
14.53%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 4.86%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-6.87%
Negative asset growth while MRVL invests at 1.62%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-10.06%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-6.35%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.63%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
6.59%
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.