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.
-10.20%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.82%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-14.40%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-16.11%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-19.40%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.46%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.22%
Share count expansion well above MRVL's 0.30%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.22%
Diluted share count expanding well above MRVL's 0.30%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-0.05%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-47.14%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-129.77%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
45.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 5.50%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
5.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 26.90%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-13.52%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MRVL stands at 47.58%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
161.49%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 45.68%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-5.20%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-44.30%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
169.54%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-6.31%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-36.13%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
89.97%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MRVL's 108.67%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
105.71%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with MRVL's 109.88%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
69.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 40.59%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
332.40%
Stable or rising dividend while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
68.60%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.14%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
27.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.12%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-6.49%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
2.10%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
7.84%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.29%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
20.36%
Debt growth far above MRVL's 4.02%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
3.91%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 8.49%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.88%
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.