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.
-10.04%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.64%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-18.51%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-18.97%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-19.78%
Negative net income growth while LSCC stands at 83.51%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-20.21%
Negative EPS growth while LSCC is at 84.62%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.46%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSCC is at 86.84%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.11%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
4.88%
Dividend growth of 4.88% while LSCC is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-0.67%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
75.57%
Positive FCF growth while LSCC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
61.04%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to LSCC's 60.16%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
15.12%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 67.21%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
1.24%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 57.35%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
91.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of LSCC's 388.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-5.86%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC is at 119.11%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-8.36%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while LSCC stands at 213.01%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
220.89%
Below 50% of LSCC's 1167.10%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
16.14%
Below 50% of LSCC's 1403.93%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-17.80%
Negative 3Y CAGR while LSCC is 510.24%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
87.00%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x LSCC's 50.80%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
97.18%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of LSCC's 151.87%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
86.15%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x LSCC's 77.95%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
333.29%
Dividend/share CAGR of 333.29% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
68.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.41% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
27.57%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 27.57% while LSCC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-9.56%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSCC shows 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.33%
We show growth while LSCC is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.24%
Asset growth well under 50% of LSCC's 7.86%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.60%
Under 50% of LSCC's 10.73%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
5.05%
Debt shrinking faster vs. LSCC's 34.55%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-2.34%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-3.10%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.