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.
13.08%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MRVL's 4.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
21.62%
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.
67.84%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MRVL's 8.09%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
67.84%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 15.99%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
93.02%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
88.89%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
77.78%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.42%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.65%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 1.17%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
2.70%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
107.56%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
304.55%
Positive FCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
50.60%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MRVL's 56.20%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
12.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 109.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-2.10%
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.
273.52%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 45.44%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
99.32%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 63.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
308.53%
Below 50% of MRVL's 653.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
184.44%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 220.76%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
29.95%
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.
87.76%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 19.67%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
60.15%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
91.48%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.04%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
8.57%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
86.41%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
4.12%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MRVL's 11.24%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
11.16%
Inventory growth well above MRVL's 4.05%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.34%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.97%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-14.52%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 3.89%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
17.15%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 1.74%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.67%
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.