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.
15.34%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 9.65%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
10.62%
Gross profit growth similar to MRVL's 11.33%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
10.25%
EBIT growth below 50% of MRVL's 34.95%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
10.25%
Operating income growth under 50% of MRVL's 34.95%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
11.54%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 10.34%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
13.33%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 12.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
11.67%
Similar diluted EPS growth to MRVL's 12.00%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
-0.17%
Share reduction while MRVL is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.17%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
151.45%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.11%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-5.58%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-9.78%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 8.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
2374.66%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
1054.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 42.66%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
368.27%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 12.21%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
13570.50%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 15.42%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
1434.13%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 208.26%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
447.93%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 30.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
11683.51%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
2880.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
609.21%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 33.68%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
1127.36%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 69.27%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
457.67%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 45.10%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
178.95%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
371.18%
Stable or rising dividend while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
148.79%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
149.52%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
14.29%
AR growth well above MRVL's 20.21%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
13.83%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
10.58%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
18.55%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-8.88%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 5.50%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
13.60%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 2.23%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
8.37%
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.