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.
-5.68%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.25%
Negative gross profit growth while LSCC is at 5.55%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-16.28%
Negative EBIT growth while LSCC is at 63.35%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-15.24%
Negative operating income growth while LSCC is at 63.35%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-14.95%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 56.64%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-12.50%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 56.41%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-13.75%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 55.26%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.46%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.88%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.62%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.31%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-61.75%
Negative OCF growth while LSCC is at 1123.64%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-66.59%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 208.12%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
42.07%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 64.86%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
2.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 18.89%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
14.67%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 34.98%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
54.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 753.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
22.90%
Below 50% of LSCC's 2202.61%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
67.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 466.55%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
91.38%
Positive 10Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
23.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
116.01%
Positive short-term CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
37.06%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
7.25%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-1.77%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
1156.44%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1156.44% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
190.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 190.22% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
81.56%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 81.56% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.93%
Our AR growth while LSCC is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
6.74%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 8.83%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-3.35%
Negative asset growth while LSCC invests at 0.98%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.19%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.05%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
5.23%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. LSCC's 1.73%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
8.89%
We expand SG&A while LSCC cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.