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.
-12.77%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-14.16%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.48%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.73%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-21.08%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.88%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.62%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.65%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 1.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.92%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
24.31%
Dividend growth of 24.31% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
1.85%
OCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 181.45%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
4.95%
FCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 296.22%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
100.57%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 71.20%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
39.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
23.68%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
157.89%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 1436.82%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
103.87%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of LSCC's 123.14%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
59.17%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 1332.05%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1456.48%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 55.93% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
176.30%
Positive 5Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
57.27%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of LSCC's 85.89%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
29.63%
Positive growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
-5.16%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-4.04%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
601.64%
Dividend/share CAGR of 601.64% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
157.27%
Dividend/share CAGR of 157.27% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
102.33%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 102.33% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-23.85%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
4.77%
Inventory growth well above LSCC's 1.08%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-7.73%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-13.04%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.02%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
2.56%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. LSCC's 0.86%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.55%
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.