Alpha & Omega Semiconductor vs Lattice Semiconductor
AOSL and LSCC side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AOSL and LSCC compare
Lattice Semiconductor is the larger company, worth 19 times as much as Alpha & Omega Semiconductor ($13.2B against $695M).
Lattice Semiconductor grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (33.3% versus −2.5% for Alpha & Omega Semiconductor).
Lattice Semiconductor keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.6% compared with −6.2% at Alpha & Omega Semiconductor.
Lattice Semiconductor scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 6 for Alpha & Omega Semiconductor), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AOSL | LSCC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $695M | $13.2B |
| Share price | $22.98 | $92.97 |
| Change, 1 year | −19.9% | 25.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −46.0% | 13.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.08 | 1.85 |
| Employees | 2,519 | 1,174 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 358× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 20.3× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 16.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 36.9× (better) | 272× |
| P/FCF | – | 66.4× |
| FCF yield | −9.8% | 1.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $24.43 | $10.99 |
| Margin of safety | 5.9% (better) | −746% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.5% | 33.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.66% | 5.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 14.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 13.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −43.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 22.3% | 69.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | −6.4% | 7.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.2% | 5.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | −10.0% | 30.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | −5.2% | 4.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −5.1% | 6.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −12.60 | – |
| Interest coverage | −55.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.44 (better) | 3.02 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.18 | 43.55 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.6% (better) | 0.27% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.6% (better) | 0.27% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.5% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 19.1% | 0.92% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.0M (better) | −$18.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.0% | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- AOSL stock overview
- AOSL income statement
- AOSL valuation and score
- LSCC stock overview
- LSCC income statement
- LSCC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.