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.
-25.76%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 4.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-23.84%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 3.82%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-64.30%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 8.09%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-51.83%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 15.99%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-43.99%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-38.89%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-38.89%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.06%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.20%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 1.17%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.09%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-113.53%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-8871.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
86.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 56.20%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
35.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 109.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
36.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 25.49%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-222.14%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 45.44%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-166.68%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL stands at 63.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1100.28%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 653.69% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
350.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 220.76%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
93.82%
Below 50% of MRVL's 202.86%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
53.91%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 19.67%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
101.64%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.40%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
40.10%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-1.06%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 11.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
1.41%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MRVL's 4.05%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-1.01%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
3.26%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
37.42%
Debt growth far above MRVL's 3.89%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-36.28%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.