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.
3.47%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 3.13%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
1.64%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of LSCC's 3.08%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
3.82%
Positive EBIT growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1.96%
Positive operating income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
0.82%
Positive net income growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
0.53%
Positive EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1.08%
Positive diluted EPS growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.11%
Share reduction more than 1.5x LSCC's 0.23%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.11%
Dividend reduction while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
20.60%
OCF growth under 50% of LSCC's 57.35%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-126.40%
Negative FCF growth while LSCC is at 91.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
80.64%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to LSCC's 88.58%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
21.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 67.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
41.12%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 85.02%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
152.14%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 1980.10%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-17.56%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is at 798.18%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-17.95%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 338.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
216.94%
Below 50% of LSCC's 744.33%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
31.88%
Below 50% of LSCC's 326.99%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
25.88%
Below 50% of LSCC's 366.51%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
74.95%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 31.53%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
61.29%
Below 50% of LSCC's 125.90%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
110.37%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 54.55%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
342.27%
Dividend/share CAGR of 342.27% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
99.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 99.75% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
37.90%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 37.90% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.21%
AR growth well above LSCC's 6.35%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
13.41%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.88%
Positive asset growth while LSCC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.46%
Under 50% of LSCC's 11.35%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
10.79%
We have some new debt while LSCC reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
4.84%
R&D dropping or stable vs. LSCC's 16.55%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-2.74%
We cut SG&A while LSCC invests at 12.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.