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.
-12.12%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-16.95%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-79.40%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-83.45%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-66.33%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-66.18%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-65.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.50%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.49%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
22.98%
Dividend growth of 22.98% while MRVL is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-9.73%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-5.99%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
103.30%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 603.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
3.27%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 19.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
10.62%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 51.09%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
113.57%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 73.42%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-6.01%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is at 858.65%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
20.95%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
165.64%
Similar net income/share CAGR to MRVL's 163.36%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
-56.90%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MRVL is 157.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-55.02%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL is 229.54%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
49.55%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 97.55%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
35.46%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 56.08%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
25.81%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MRVL's 36.62%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
856.00%
Dividend/share CAGR of 856.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
109.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 109.92% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
76.00%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 76.00% while MRVL is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-24.21%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.92%
Inventory is declining while MRVL stands at 14.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.19%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.41%
We have a declining book value while MRVL shows 2.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.07%
We’re deleveraging while MRVL stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-8.21%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-5.08%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.