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.
3.12%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of MRVL's 4.29%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
223.36%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.82%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
31.15%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.09%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
31.15%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 15.99%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
24.78%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
37.80%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
37.80%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
14.90%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
14.90%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 1.17%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-75.13%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
35000.00%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
321.90%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
28.18%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 56.20%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
17.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 109.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-2.29%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 25.49%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-82.91%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is at 653.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-387.17%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 220.76%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-184.17%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 202.86%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
21.11%
Below 50% of MRVL's 54.87%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
1.73%
Below 50% of MRVL's 19.67%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
7.09%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-15.75%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MRVL stands at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-15.75%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
56.02%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-12.39%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 11.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.12%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 4.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.55%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-20.60%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-4.73%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 3.89%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.90%
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.