205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
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.
91.94%
Revenue growth above 1.5x AVGO's 0.59%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
122.82%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x AVGO's 0.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
188.14%
Positive EBIT growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
188.14%
Positive operating income growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
560.71%
Positive net income growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
589.13%
Positive EPS growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
589.13%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.32%
Share count expansion well above AVGO's 0.26%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
3.74%
Slight or no buyback while AVGO is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.32%
Dividend reduction while AVGO stands at 0.14%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-54.39%
Negative OCF growth while AVGO is at 7.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-88.70%
Negative FCF growth while AVGO is at 6.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
43.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 409.54%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-15.35%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AVGO stands at 122.61%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-11.62%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AVGO stands at 60.90%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2204.86%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 73.80%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-32.61%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AVGO stands at 34.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
39.09%
Below 50% of AVGO's 691.11%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
104.35%
Below 50% of AVGO's 651.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-7.92%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AVGO is 66.58%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
40.90%
Below 50% of AVGO's 147.32%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
63.10%
Below 50% of AVGO's 188.08%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
101.36%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1441.93%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
-22.01%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while AVGO stands at 71.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
80.04%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 38.29%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-5.56%
Firm’s AR is declining while AVGO shows 14.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.69%
Inventory is declining while AVGO stands at 5.71%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.04%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
3.01%
Positive BV/share change while AVGO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
20.71%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. AVGO's 19.53%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
8.55%
SG&A growth well above AVGO's 14.12%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.