PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
-0.63%
Negative revenue growth while QRVO stands at 13.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.43%
Negative gross profit growth while QRVO is at 10.40%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-2.53%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-0.40%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
9.72%
Positive net income growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
10.53%
Positive EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
10.71%
Positive diluted EPS growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.21%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.53%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.21%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while QRVO cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-51.48%
Negative OCF growth while QRVO is at 37.24%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-56.63%
Negative FCF growth while QRVO is at 36.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
37.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of QRVO's 57.55%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
18.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 208.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
4.90%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 20.07%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
58.74%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 2012.85%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
56.76%
Below 50% of QRVO's 792.60%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
14.75%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 368.18%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
136.30%
Below 50% of QRVO's 1407.65%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
100.76%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 28.79%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
26.23%
Below 50% of QRVO's 853.47%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
4.46%
Below 50% of QRVO's 298.07%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-16.33%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while QRVO is at 649.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-22.07%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
647.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 647.52% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
165.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 165.01% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
80.30%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 80.30% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
22.53%
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.
0.10%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. QRVO's 1.16%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.08%
Negative asset growth while QRVO invests at 2.04%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-12.98%
We have a declining book value while QRVO shows 0.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
6.76%
Debt growth far above QRVO's 10.81%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-2.33%
Our R&D shrinks while QRVO invests at 5.38%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.21%
SG&A declining or stable vs. QRVO's 18.59%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.