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.
17.79%
Positive revenue growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
39.45%
Positive gross profit growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
272.17%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 810.08%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
3330.00%
Operating income growth above 1.5x QRVO's 6.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
1429.41%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
2000.00%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1900.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.63%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.39%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.80%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
121.91%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
144.71%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
29.78%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 95.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
5.55%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 27.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-18.54%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
128.04%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x QRVO's 108.03%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
53.26%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 5.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
6.84%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-0.33%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while QRVO is at 1921.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-17.92%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-86.65%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
73.41%
Positive growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
3.13%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-11.69%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
417.19%
Dividend/share CAGR of 417.19% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
423.04%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while QRVO is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
262.50%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 262.50% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
10.58%
Our AR growth while QRVO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-3.19%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.09%
Negative asset growth while QRVO invests at 1.09%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.66%
Under 50% of QRVO's 3.14%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4.40%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
7.21%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QRVO's 19.11%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.