vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Marvell Technology, Inc. (MRVL) and VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC (VSH), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Marvell Technology, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($2.1B vs $800.9M, roughly 2.6× VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC). Marvell Technology, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 91.7% vs 0.1%, a 91.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Marvell Technology, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (36.8% vs 12.1%). Marvell Technology, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($508.8M vs $54.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Marvell Technology, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (20.6% CAGR vs 3.6%).
Marvell Technology, Inc. is an American company, headquartered in Santa Clara, California, which develops and produces semiconductors and related technology. Founded in 1995, the company had more than 6,500 employees as of 2024, with over 10,000 patents worldwide, and an annual revenue of $5.5 billion for fiscal 2024.
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. is an American manufacturer of discrete semiconductors and passive electronic components founded by Polish-born businessman Felix Zandman. Vishay has manufacturing plants in Israel, Asia, Europe, and the Americas where it produces rectifiers, diodes, MOSFETs, optoelectronics, selected integrated circuits, resistors, capacitors, and inductors. Vishay Intertechnology revenues for 2024 were $2.9 billion. At the end of 2024, Vishay had approximately 22,700 full-time e...
MRVL vs VSH — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.1B | $800.9M |
| Net Profit | $1.9B | $986.0K |
| Gross Margin | 51.6% | 19.6% |
| Operating Margin | 17.2% | 1.8% |
| Net Margin | 91.7% | 0.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 36.8% | 12.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 381.1% | 101.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.20 | $0.01 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $2.1B | $800.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.0B | $790.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.9B | $762.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $715.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.5B | $714.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $735.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $741.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4B | $746.3M |
| Q4 25 | $1.9B | $986.0K | ||
| Q3 25 | $194.8M | $-7.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $177.9M | $2.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $200.2M | $-4.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-676.3M | $-66.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-193.3M | $-19.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-215.6M | $23.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-392.7M | $30.9M |
| Q4 25 | 51.6% | 19.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 50.4% | 19.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 50.3% | 19.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 50.5% | 19.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 23.0% | 19.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 46.2% | 20.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 45.5% | 22.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 46.6% | 22.8% |
| Q4 25 | 17.2% | 1.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.5% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.3% | 2.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.9% | 0.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | -46.4% | -7.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.9% | -2.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -13.1% | 5.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -2.3% | 5.7% |
| Q4 25 | 91.7% | 0.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.7% | -1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.4% | 0.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.0% | -0.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -44.6% | -9.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | -15.2% | -2.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | -18.6% | 3.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -27.5% | 4.1% |
| Q4 25 | $2.20 | $0.01 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.22 | $-0.06 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.20 | $0.01 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.23 | $-0.03 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.78 | $-0.48 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.22 | $-0.14 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.25 | $0.17 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.45 | $0.22 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $2.7B | $515.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $4.5B | $950.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $14.1B | $2.1B |
| Total Assets | $21.6B | $4.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.32× | 0.46× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $2.7B | $515.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $443.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $885.9M | $473.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $948.3M | $609.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $868.1M | $590.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $808.7M | $643.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $847.7M | $672.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $950.8M | $796.5M |
| Q4 25 | $4.5B | $950.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.5B | $919.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2B | $914.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.1B | $988.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.1B | $905.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.1B | $820.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.1B | $820.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.2B | $819.4M |
| Q4 25 | $14.1B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $13.4B | $2.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.4B | $2.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $13.4B | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $14.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $14.5B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $14.8B | $2.2B |
| Q4 25 | $21.6B | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $20.6B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.0B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $20.2B | $4.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.7B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.3B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $20.5B | $4.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $21.2B | $4.3B |
| Q4 25 | 0.32× | 0.46× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.33× | 0.44× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.32× | 0.44× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.30× | 0.49× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.31× | 0.45× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.29× | 0.38× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.29× | 0.38× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.28× | 0.38× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $582.3M | $149.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $508.8M | $54.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 24.5% | 6.8% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 3.5% | 11.8% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.31× | 151.48× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $1.6B | $-89.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $582.3M | $149.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $461.6M | $27.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $332.9M | $-8.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $514.0M | $16.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $536.3M | $67.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $306.4M | $50.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $324.5M | $-24.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $546.6M | $80.2M |
| Q4 25 | $508.8M | $54.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $414.1M | $-24.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $214.1M | $-73.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $444.1M | $-45.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $461.3M | $-77.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $258.2M | $-9.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $233.0M | $-87.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $475.6M | $27.1M |
| Q4 25 | 24.5% | 6.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.6% | -3.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 11.3% | -9.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.4% | -6.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.4% | -10.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.3% | -1.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 20.1% | -11.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 33.3% | 3.6% |
| Q4 25 | 3.5% | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.4% | 6.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 6.3% | 8.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.8% | 8.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 4.9% | 20.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.8% | 8.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.9% | 8.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 5.0% | 7.1% |
| Q4 25 | 0.31× | 151.48× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.37× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.87× | -4.39× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.57× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | -1.05× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.59× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
MRVL
Segment breakdown not available.
VSH
| Resistors Segment | $189.4M | 24% |
| Diodes Segment | $154.2M | 19% |
| Capacitors Segment | $136.5M | 17% |
| Other | $126.4M | 16% |
| Inductors Segment | $92.6M | 12% |
| Optoelectronic Components Segment | $55.7M | 7% |
| EMS Companies | $51.6M | 6% |
