Fair Isaac holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and stability adding further support. In the market, Lam Research carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Fair Isaac's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Fair Isaac, 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 S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
The lead is spread across valuation and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. The overall score gap is 13 points in favour of Fair Isaac Corporation.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
The match is driven mainly by capital structure and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Structure stays fairly close here, while current pricing still looks more supportive for Fair Isaac Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where FICO and LRCX 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 8.3 turns lower.
On the market side, Lam Research carries the stronger trend while Fair Isaac's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Valuation is the clearest driver, and stability also supports Fair Isaac Corporation's broader structural position.
Break down the FICO vs LRCX comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how FICO and LRCX 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.