PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
-1.49%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.01%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-1.42%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
0.44%
Positive operating income growth while AVGO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-4.70%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-4.35%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.35%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.46%
Share reduction while AVGO is at 0.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.54%
Reduced diluted shares while AVGO is at 0.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.15%
Dividend growth under 50% of AVGO's 8.34%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-61.47%
Negative OCF growth while AVGO is at 8.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-64.74%
Negative FCF growth while AVGO is at 14.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
62.88%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to AVGO's 65.58%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
68.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to AVGO's 65.58%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-5.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AVGO stands at 25.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
88.46%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AVGO's 5020.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
117.10%
Below 50% of AVGO's 5020.28%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-3.34%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AVGO stands at 232.18%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
112.73%
Below 50% of AVGO's 1819.41%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
3278.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AVGO's 1819.41%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-21.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AVGO is 9.44%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
40.88%
Equity/share CAGR of 40.88% while AVGO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
36.00%
Equity/share CAGR of 36.00% while AVGO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
8.43%
Below 50% of AVGO's 76.88%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1308.17%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1308.17% while AVGO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
171.86%
Dividend/share CAGR of 171.86% while AVGO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
129.32%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of AVGO's 254.45%. Martin Whitman might see a weaker short-term approach to distributing cash.
12.64%
Our AR growth while AVGO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-0.98%
Inventory is declining while AVGO stands at 0.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.02%
Negative asset growth while AVGO invests at 1.67%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.28%
We have a declining book value while AVGO shows 3.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
9.58%
Debt growth of 9.58% while AVGO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
5.78%
We increase R&D while AVGO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.90%
SG&A declining or stable vs. AVGO's 23.33%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.