PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.59M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
11.74%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 134.49%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
4.29%
Some D&A expansion while LSCC is negative at -17.42%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-5300.00%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-37.84%
Negative yoy SBC while LSCC is 12.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
94.19%
Slight usage while LSCC is negative at -428.53%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
64.95%
AR growth well above LSCC's 108.51%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
55.17%
Some inventory rise while LSCC is negative at -106.45%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
750.00%
A yoy AP increase while LSCC is negative at -198.30%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
1.97%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. LSCC's 28.02%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
95.24%
Well above LSCC's 43.19%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
15.33%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of LSCC's 54.10%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
-48.59%
Negative yoy CapEx while LSCC is 4.70%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
48.59%
Acquisition growth of 48.59% while LSCC is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-155.48%
Negative yoy purchasing while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
24.73%
Liquidation growth of 24.73% while LSCC is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-58.02%
We reduce yoy other investing while LSCC is 115.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-2082.72%
We reduce yoy invests while LSCC stands at 60.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
100.00%
We repay more while LSCC is negative at -42.58%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
-46.08%
Negative yoy issuance while LSCC is 350.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-17.88%
We cut yoy buybacks while LSCC is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.