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.
17.83%
Positive revenue growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
21.53%
Positive gross profit growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
24.20%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.20%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
21.13%
Net income growth under 50% of MRVL's 45.10%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
20.00%
EPS growth under 50% of MRVL's 44.44%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
22.45%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 44.44%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-0.16%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.04%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.85%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
33.45%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
33.18%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
2045.22%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
1056.95%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 33.50%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
364.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 11.81%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
9129.58%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
2001.82%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 49.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
726.15%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 1994.93%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
9801.56%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
3624.74%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
685.25%
Positive short-term CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
971.24%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 77.27%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
399.42%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 52.56%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
164.09%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
90.49%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.25%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
-0.36%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-0.13%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MRVL invests at 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
23.66%
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.
11.02%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
17.26%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
14.53%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.59%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
10.34%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 3.59%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
9.13%
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.