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
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.
2.81%
Revenue growth above 1.5x LSCC's 1.15%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
3.64%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x LSCC's 2.33%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
4.17%
EBIT growth below 50% of LSCC's 16.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
5.51%
Operating income growth under 50% of LSCC's 16.00%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
9.20%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 58.18%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
10.14%
EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 66.67%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
9.56%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of LSCC's 66.67%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.21%
Share reduction while LSCC is at 0.60%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.31%
Reduced diluted shares while LSCC is at 1.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.08%
Dividend growth of 0.08% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
10.91%
Positive OCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
21.89%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
75.75%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to LSCC's 82.74%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
22.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 6.62%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
9.87%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
220.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 24.81%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
63.29%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 7.11%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
50.95%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 224.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
255.52%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 385.36%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
95.58%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 28.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
57.62%
Below 50% of LSCC's 198.88%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
27.78%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 8.82%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-2.72%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-6.47%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while LSCC is at 2.58%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
601.27%
Dividend/share CAGR of 601.27% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
156.24%
Dividend/share CAGR of 156.24% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
102.09%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 102.09% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.43%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 25.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-1.88%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.50%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
6.11%
1.25-1.5x LSCC's 4.28%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-0.19%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-2.82%
Our R&D shrinks while LSCC invests at 3.38%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-5.00%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 6.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.