PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
3.02 - 3.02
2.85 - 3.74
400 / 3.8K (Avg.)
12.58 | 0.24
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.
-4.77%
Negative revenue growth while LSX.DE stands at 15.19%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-22.70%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-59.22%
Negative EBIT growth while LSX.DE is at 115.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-58.79%
Negative operating income growth while LSX.DE is at 113.75%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-62.10%
Negative net income growth while LSX.DE stands at 59.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-62.07%
Negative EPS growth while LSX.DE is at 53.85%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-62.07%
Negative diluted EPS growth while LSX.DE is at 53.85%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-87.81%
Dividend reduction while LSX.DE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
197.33%
Similar OCF growth to LSX.DE's 206.01%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
287.89%
FCF growth under 50% of LSX.DE's 870.22%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
9.73%
Positive 3Y CAGR while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-81.49%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
75.09%
Positive short-term equity growth while LSX.DE is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-83.30%
Negative near-term dividend growth while LSX.DE invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-17.68%
Firm’s AR is declining while LSX.DE shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-3.26%
Inventory is declining while LSX.DE stands at 132.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.30%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
2.91%
50-75% of LSX.DE's 4.40%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-6.83%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-5.14%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.