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.
-12.12%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-16.95%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-79.40%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-83.45%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-66.33%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-66.18%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-65.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.50%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.49%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
22.98%
Dividend growth of 22.98% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-9.73%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-5.99%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
103.30%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 8.53%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
3.27%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 23.21%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
10.62%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 18.82%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
113.57%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 1327.83%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-6.01%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
20.95%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
165.64%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 94.63% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-56.90%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while LSCC is 96.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-55.02%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
49.55%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
35.46%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 23.96%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
25.81%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 40.22%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
856.00%
Dividend/share CAGR of 856.00% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
109.92%
Dividend/share CAGR of 109.92% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
76.00%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 76.00% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-24.21%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.92%
Inventory is declining while LSCC stands at 18.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.19%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.41%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.07%
We’re deleveraging while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-8.21%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-5.08%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.