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.
2.02%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
20.65%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
108.99%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
108.99%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
107.94%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
111.11%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
111.11%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.77%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.88%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.24%
Dividend reduction while MRVL stands at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
473.72%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
1360.87%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
450.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 12.64%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
104.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 33.23%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
93.61%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 54.02%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
402.03%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 5.77%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
62.92%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to MRVL's 69.67%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
52.52%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 390.54%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
718.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
24.42%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
47.88%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
360.89%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 114.66%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
191.02%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 118.24%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
79.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 40.41%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
110.52%
Stable or rising dividend while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
5.94%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
-0.65%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-22.03%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
15.83%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 11.57%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.71%
Asset growth of 1.71% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
4.32%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.33%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
8.26%
We have some new debt while MRVL reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.36%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.95%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.