PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
3.02 - 3.02
2.85 - 3.74
400 / 3.8K (Avg.)
12.58 | 0.24
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.
14.78%
Positive revenue growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
19.93%
Positive gross profit growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
147.57%
Positive EBIT growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
147.57%
Positive operating income growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
21.06%
Positive net income growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
21.43%
Positive EPS growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
21.43%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.68%
Share count expansion well above LSX.DE's 0.00%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while LSX.DE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
63.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSX.DE's 391.56%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
63.89%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSX.DE's 93.01%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
368.90%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
368.90%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
41.23%
Equity/share CAGR of 41.23% while LSX.DE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
41.23%
Below 50% of LSX.DE's 145.83%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3637.61%
AR growth of 3637.61% while LSX.DE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
4.19%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. LSX.DE's 134.72%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-0.00%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
4.69%
Positive BV/share change while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-14.64%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.55%
We expand SG&A while LSX.DE cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.