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.
1.65%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 5.89%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
5.39%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 3.64%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
44.97%
Positive EBIT growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
40.47%
Positive operating income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
75.78%
Net income growth above 1.5x MRVL's 1.42%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
78.95%
EPS growth of 78.95% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
76.32%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MRVL's 3.23%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.88%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.13%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.37%
Dividend growth of 0.37% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
78.07%
Positive OCF growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
98.87%
FCF growth above 1.5x MRVL's 1.56%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
128.08%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 894.11%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
16.05%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 78.63%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
30.73%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MRVL's 22.44%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
221.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 36531.97%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-1.55%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 94.64%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
60.07%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 3.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
530.73%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 241.92% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
26.69%
Below 50% of MRVL's 3056.57%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
61.84%
Below 50% of MRVL's 180.27%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
55.49%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 86.43%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
28.39%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 48.79%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
34.19%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MRVL's 34.04%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
707.91%
Dividend/share CAGR of 707.91% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
113.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 113.40% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
56.13%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 56.13% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-0.37%
Firm’s AR is declining while MRVL shows 11.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.96%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
5.09%
Asset growth above 1.5x MRVL's 0.67%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.10%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MRVL's 1.60%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
20.99%
Debt growth of 20.99% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
-3.54%
Our R&D shrinks while MRVL invests at 6.67%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.66%
We cut SG&A while MRVL invests at 8.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.