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
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
9.20%
Net income growth under 50% of LSCC's 58.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
3.00%
Less D&A growth vs. LSCC's 25.49%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-112.90%
Negative yoy deferred tax while LSCC stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-28.36%
Negative yoy SBC while LSCC is 43.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
24.31%
Slight usage while LSCC is negative at -155.39%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
266.67%
AR growth while LSCC is negative at -153.86%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-25.00%
Negative yoy inventory while LSCC is 192.54%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
211.54%
A yoy AP increase while LSCC is negative at -214.43%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-40.30%
Negative yoy usage while LSCC is 29.17%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
141.82%
Some yoy increase while LSCC is negative at -73.29%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
10.91%
Some CFO growth while LSCC is negative at -59.05%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
47.54%
CapEx growth well above LSCC's 10.31%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
-47.54%
Negative yoy acquisition while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-312.55%
Negative yoy purchasing while LSCC stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
10.00%
Liquidation growth of 10.00% while LSCC is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
32.42%
Growth well above LSCC's 40.28%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-254.26%
We reduce yoy invests while LSCC stands at 25.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
32.88%
Stock issuance far above LSCC's 4.39%. Michael Burry flags a significant dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach unless ROI is very high.
47.16%
Buyback growth of 47.16% while LSCC is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.