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.
-2.70%
Negative revenue growth while QRVO stands at 4.01%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-0.29%
Negative gross profit growth while QRVO is at 9.95%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
4.57%
EBIT growth below 50% of QRVO's 101.12%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
-1.29%
Negative operating income growth while QRVO is at 104.19%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
17.55%
Net income growth under 50% of QRVO's 110.00%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
19.84%
EPS growth under 50% of QRVO's 108.82%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
19.35%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of QRVO's 112.12%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.61%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.70%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.54%
Dividend reduction while QRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
102.12%
Positive OCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
130.43%
Positive FCF growth while QRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
22.18%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 126.84%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
13.14%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 183.98%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-4.83%
Negative 3Y CAGR while QRVO stands at 1.88%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
303.61%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of QRVO's 5241.87%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
136.80%
Below 50% of QRVO's 277.15%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
103.54%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while QRVO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
136.66%
Below 50% of QRVO's 397.51%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
123.84%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x QRVO's 67.45%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
41.81%
Below 50% of QRVO's 665.42%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
3.34%
Below 50% of QRVO's 675.26%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-15.44%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while QRVO is at 579.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-22.54%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
638.34%
Dividend/share CAGR of 638.34% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
162.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 162.46% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
79.33%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 79.33% while QRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-10.64%
Firm’s AR is declining while QRVO shows 22.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
6.64%
We show growth while QRVO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.94%
Positive asset growth while QRVO is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.45%
Positive BV/share change while QRVO is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
3.76%
We have some new debt while QRVO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.53%
We increase R&D while QRVO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-3.84%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.