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.
-5.18%
Negative revenue growth while LSCC stands at 14.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-54.96%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 14.29%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
23.89%
EBIT growth above 1.5x LSCC's 11.29%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
23.89%
Operating income growth above 1.5x LSCC's 11.29%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
5.19%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 15.22%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.97%
Share change of 1.97% while LSCC is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
1.97%
Diluted share change of 1.97% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-10.10%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-70.45%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-120.49%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
36.26%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 362.30%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
10.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 362.30%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
9.60%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 101.15%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
22.27%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
616.08%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 616.08% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
-18.38%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
456.75%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 65.26%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-27.07%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while LSCC is at 177.34%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
33.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 33.94% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-18.09%
Negative near-term dividend growth while LSCC invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
3.28%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. LSCC's 703.88%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
4.50%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. LSCC's 75.32%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
7.75%
Asset growth at 75-90% of LSCC's 10.27%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
1.80%
Under 50% of LSCC's 8.24%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.91%
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.
0.30%
SG&A declining or stable vs. LSCC's 15.79%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.