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.
21.98%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.56%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
25.31%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 20.48%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
30.69%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 94.87%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
30.69%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 94.87%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
32.91%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
31.58%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
32.43%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.08%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.16%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
2.14%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
56.83%
OCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.67%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
59.41%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.73%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
1681.26%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
890.21%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 45.71%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
343.59%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 39.27%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
2546.14%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 213.03%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
1164.93%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 289.94%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
458.57%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 168.96%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
7610.59%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
2040.31%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
746.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
789.30%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 82.54%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
354.45%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 54.43%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
155.44%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 36.95%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
88.89%
Stable or rising dividend while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
-0.21%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
0.41%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
20.34%
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.
10.53%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
21.39%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
29.30%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.26%
We have some new debt while MRVL reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
7.45%
We increase R&D while MRVL cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.34%
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.