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.
-2.88%
Negative revenue growth while MRVL stands at 4.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-3.46%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 3.82%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-155.87%
Negative EBIT growth while MRVL is at 8.09%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-155.87%
Negative operating income growth while MRVL is at 15.99%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-116.65%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-116.07%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-116.82%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.87%
Slight or no buybacks while MRVL is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.32%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 1.17%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
5.33%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MRVL cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-13.35%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-23.08%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
27.65%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 56.20%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
12.23%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 109.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-17.00%
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.
23.67%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 45.44%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
4.59%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 63.72%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-398.64%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is at 653.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-439.94%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 220.76%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-244.17%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 202.86%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
176.53%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 54.87%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
178.97%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 19.67%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
85.07%
Positive short-term equity growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
93.86%
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.
30.11%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
40.58%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-3.45%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 11.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.11%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 4.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-10.15%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-7.23%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-16.54%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 3.89%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
169.45%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MRVL's 1.74%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
16.62%
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.