Antero Resources leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Lattice Semiconductor still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Lattice Semiconductor carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Antero Resources's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Antero Resources, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
Most of the separation is still concentrated in valuation. The overall score gap is 20 points in favour of Antero Resources Corporation.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A moderate similarity means the pair is structurally comparable, but not a near-twin trajectory match.
The match is driven mainly by investment intensity and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The two profiles are relatively close, but the price setup still leans toward Antero Resources Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where AR and LSCC each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 44 turns lower.
On the market side, Lattice Semiconductor carries the stronger trend while Antero Resources's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The valuation edge is decisive, even though current pricing and profitability still lean somewhat toward Lattice Semiconductor Corporation.
Break down the AR vs LSCC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AR and LSCC each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.