Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 15, 2026
8 days ago · 100% complete
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Cirrus Logic, Inc. (CRUS) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.

Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score +34 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 63 · Value 10 · Sentiment 42 (timing only, not weighted)

Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable reference-name attribute you can cite):

  • profile-header / price-overview — company profile, live quote, market cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-narrative / ai-findings / gpt-critique — narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)
  • Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers): price-history, income-trend, key-metrics, financials (statement tables), insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.

More for machine readers: site briefing at /llms.txt · any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER · raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds); every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.

Cirrus Logic, Inc.

CRUS NASDAQ
Technology · Semiconductors
Austin, TX 78701, United States cirrus.com Updated Aug 15, 11:29am
Price
$121.09
Market Cap
$6.1B
Employees
1,651
Beta
1.18
Avg Volume
737,677
CEO
Mr. John M. Forsyth

Cirrus Logic, Inc. is a fabless semiconductor company that develops mixed-signal processing solutions and audio products for markets in China, the United States, and internationally. Its primary offerings include audio products such as amplifiers, codecs that integrate analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) and digital-to-analog converters (DACs), smart codecs with embedded digital signal processing, standalone digital signal processors, and SoundClear technology. These solutions power devices like smartphones, tablets, laptops, AR/VR headsets, home theater systems, automotive entertainment systems, and professional audio equipment. Cirrus Logic also provides high-performance mixed-signal products, including camera controllers, haptic and sensing solutions, and battery and power ICs tailored for smartphones, alongside applications in automotive, industrial, and imaging sectors. The company emphasizes diversification across consumer electronics, PCs, automotive, and industrial segments, leveraging expertise in audio and mixed-signal technologies to deliver integrated components that enhance device performance and user experience. Founded in 1984 and headquartered in Austin, Texas, Cirrus Logic plays a key role in enabling advanced audio and signal processing in modern electronics.

Runs with full report Generated: Aug 15, 2026 11:35am
Price Overview
Price at report time
$121.09
as of Aug 15, 12:58pm (8d ago)
Change · Aug 15
-0.13 (-0.11%)
Day Range
$119.97 – $123.00
52-Week Range
$107.39 – $180.42
50-Day MA
$144.27
200-Day MA
$140.83
Volume
535,600.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 8d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 50,445,000.00
Float 49,204,419.00
Free Float 97.5%
High free float — 97.5% of shares trade freely, ~2.5% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 1:06pm (8d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 1:06pm (8d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 15, 2026 1:01pm
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
15.43
Stock Price: $121.09
EPS (Diluted): 7.85
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
3.01
Stock Price: $121.09
Total Equity: $2.13B
Shares: 52,822,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
10.52
Market Cap: $6.07B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $800.93M
EBITDA: $512.68M
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$5.4B
Market Cap: $6.07B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $800.93M
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
52.8%
Gross Profit: $1.05B
Revenue: $2.00B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
23.0%
Operating Income: $460.38M
Revenue: $2.00B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
20.7%
Net Income: $414.41M
Revenue: $2.00B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
19.5%
Net Income: $414.41M
Total Equity: $2.13B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
28.9%
Operating Income: $460.38M
Tax Rate: 16.6%
Equity: $2.13B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $800.93M
Zero debt — invested capital = equity minus cash (very efficient)
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
7.37
Current Assets: $1.43B
Current Liabilities: $194.66M
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
0.00
Short-Term Debt: $0.00
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $2.13B
Zero debt — this company carries no debt obligations. Strongest possible score.
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$37.81
Revenue: $2.00B
Shares: 52,822,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$40.29
Total Equity: $2.13B
Shares: 52,822,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$12.05
Operating CF: $650.60M
CapEx: -$13.99M
Shares: 52,822,000
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
Last Dividend: $0.00
Stock Price: $121.09
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
Dividends Paid: N/A
Net Income: $414.41M
Dividends paid not available in cash flow statement
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 15, 2026 1:01pm
Compares CRUS against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 1:06pm (8d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Revenue $1.8B $1.9B $1.8B $1.9B $2.0B
Cost of Revenue $857.8M $940.6M $872.8M $900.0M $943.2M
Gross Profit $923.6M $957.0M $916.1M $996.0M $1.1B
Operating Expenses $557.3M $707.9M $572.6M $585.7M $593.8M
Operating Income $366.3M $249.0M $343.5M $410.4M $460.4M
Net Income $326.4M $176.7M $274.6M $331.5M $414.4M
EBITDA $428.4M $320.2M $391.8M $461.3M $512.7M
EPS $5.70 $3.18 $5.06 $6.24 $8.10
EPS (Diluted) $5.52 $3.09 $4.90 $6.00 $7.85
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 11:29am (8d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Cash & Equivalents $369.8M $445.8M $502.8M $539.6M $800.9M
Total Current Assets $840.0M $1.0B $1.1B $1.2B $1.4B
Total Assets $2.1B $2.1B $2.2B $2.3B $2.5B
Current Liabilities $264.8M $216.3M $186.4M $195.2M $194.7M
Long-Term Debt
Total Liabilities $523.6M $405.7M $414.6M $377.6M $361.4M
Total Equity $1.6B $1.7B $1.8B $1.9B $2.1B
Retained Earnings $23.4M -$9.3M $58.9M $90.4M $184.9M
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 1:06pm (8d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Operating Cash Flow $124.8M $339.6M $421.7M $444.4M $650.6M
Capital Expenditure -$26.1M -$35.1M -$37.7M -$22.8M -$14.0M
Free Cash Flow $98.6M $304.5M $384.0M $421.6M $636.6M
Acquisitions (net) -$276.9M $0 $0
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid)
Dividends Paid
Stock Buybacks -$167.5M -$191.4M -$186.0M -$261.0M -$280.0M
Net Change in Cash -$72.4M $76.0M $57.0M $36.9M $261.3M
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 15, 2026 1:06pm (8d ago)
Metric 2023 2024 2025 2026
Revenue Growth +6.5% -5.7% +6.0% +5.3%
Gross Profit Growth +3.6% -4.3% +8.7% +5.8%
Operating Income Growth -32.0% +37.9% +19.5% +12.2%
Net Income Growth -45.9% +55.4% +20.7% +25.0%
EBITDA Growth -25.2% +22.3% +17.8% +11.1%
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable not yet run 12 computed · 6 not applicable · 6 not yet run
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for CRUS — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-15
The creme is there an opportunity here? Conditional opportunity
Own it for rising audio/sensing content per AI-era device — but the whole thesis is a bet on one customer choosing not to build the chip itself.
AI's favorable channel here is physical: voice-first assistants make the always-on analog front end power- and latency-critical, supporting content dollars rather than seat-based deflation, while AI-assisted verification lets a 52.8% GM / 23% OpM business convert design productivity to cash (FCF already $637M). The kill switch is customer_diy_preference at 31 with relevance 90 — insourcing is the only mechanism that matters at scale, and cheaper design tooling nudges it the wrong way. Watch teardown-level content per flagship and the non-audio revenue mix (camera controllers, power ICs) before consensus does; a durable non-handset line above roughly a quarter of sales re-rates the structure, a lost amplifier socket ends the argument.
58
AI Position
Mildly favorable — content tailwind against an insourcing shadow
Cheap machine intelligence makes voice the primary device interface (more audio/haptic/sensing content per phone) while simultaneously lowering the cost for Cirrus's dominant customer to design that silicon in-house.
Exposure 46 Confidence 62 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

If AI assistants make speech the main input to phones and laptops, the audio front-end stops being a commodity feature and becomes latency- and power-critical: more mics, higher-fidelity codecs, always-on low-power wake and noise suppression, and richer haptics — all dollar content Cirrus already owns sockets for.

Primary Pressure

Cirrus's economics rest on one vertically-integrated customer's willingness to buy rather than build; AI-assisted design, verification and layout tooling shaves cost and schedule off internal mixed-signal programs, marginally raising the odds of socket absorption into the customer's own SoC/power silicon.

Critical Hinge

Whether per-device audio/mixed-signal content dollars rise faster than insourcing erodes share. Observable: content-per-unit and non-audio (camera controller, power) revenue mix disclosed each quarter versus flat-to-down flagship handset units.

Hard to Reproduce

Silicon-proven analog and mixed-signal blocks tuned per acoustic system, decades of speaker-protection/haptics algorithm co-development inside one OEM's design flow, and the qualification history that makes a swap a whole-product risk — none of which a code-generation model produces.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 89
Devices must convert sound to bits and back; voice AI makes that need larger, not smaller.
Audio capture/playback is a physical-layer function no model replaces, and speech-driven assistants increase the number of microphones and the quality bar on the analog front end.
Mic count per flagship handset · Always-on voice feature adoption · Spatial audio and haptics content growth
relevance 72 · confidence 86
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 69
Discrete mixed-signal companion chips persist, but SoC absorption is the live threat.
Analog blocks scale poorly on leading-edge nodes, favoring separate die; the counterforce is a vertically integrated lead customer consolidating power/audio functions into its own silicon.
Teardown evidence of Cirrus content · Customer's in-house analog hiring · Socket count per device generation
relevance 86 · confidence 60
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 52
Cheap intelligence speeds Cirrus's own design cycle and equally speeds every rival's.
AI accelerates verification, characterization and digital DSP work, but analog layout, parasitics and silicon respins remain empirical — so the tooling gain is real yet non-exclusive.
R&D per new product ramp · Tapeout cadence vs headcount · Competitor time-to-socket shortening
relevance 66 · confidence 55
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 46
Cirrus carries reliability and qualification risk, but is not paid to absorb liability.
Automotive and speaker-protection functions carry warranty/field-failure accountability that discourages casual substitution, though this is a minor pillar versus a payroll-style compliance shield.
Automotive design-win disclosures · Field failure or recall events · Qualification cycle length for rivals
relevance 28 · confidence 58
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 63
Analog/mixed-signal talent and silicon-proven IP become relatively scarcer as digital design automates.
If AI commoditizes RTL and software, the residual bottleneck migrates toward physics-bound analog and power design — a pool Cirrus has spent two decades assembling.
Mixed-signal engineer attrition · Wins outside audio (power, camera) · Analog IP licensing activity
relevance 72 · confidence 58
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 31
The single dominant customer has both the appetite and, increasingly, the tooling to build it internally.
Concentration means DIY risk is not diffuse customer behavior but one buyer's roadmap decision, and AI-assisted design lowers the internal program's cost and schedule penalty.
Customer concentration percentage trend · In-house amplifier/codec appearances · Multi-year supply agreement renewals
relevance 90 · confidence 58
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 57
Agents cannot route around a physical component; intermediation risk is structurally low.
Revenue comes from design wins negotiated years ahead, not from a purchasable interface an AI could bypass or a marketplace an agent could shop.
Design-win pipeline commentary · Distribution vs direct mix · Non-flagship OEM engagements
relevance 26 · confidence 68
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 44
Acoustic tuning and speaker-protection datasets help, but are not a compounding AI moat.
Years of per-device acoustic characterization improve SoundClear tuning inside customer programs, yet the customer owns much of the system data and open audio models are improving fast.
On-device DSP algorithm wins · Software/algorithm revenue attach · Customer-owned tuning shift
relevance 44 · confidence 52
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 64
Engineering-productivity gains can reach the bottom line, but a monopsony buyer may claim them.
GM has climbed 51.8%→52.8% and OpM 20.6%→23% with FCF at $637M, showing cost discipline converts; the risk is annual price-down negotiations capturing AI-driven design savings.
Opex growth vs revenue growth · Gross margin by product line · R&D as percent of revenue
relevance 66 · confidence 60
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 58
The monetized unit — dollars of silicon per shipped device — survives but depends on flat handset volumes.
Content per device can rise with voice-first AI and haptics, yet total units are saturated, so the revenue unit is durable in form and cyclical in size.
Content per unit disclosures · Smartphone and AI-PC unit trends · Non-handset revenue share
relevance 80 · confidence 62
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 49
Analog barriers survive cheap software, but AI-assisted tooling helps Chinese challengers close low-end gaps.
Reproducing a qualified boosted amplifier in a flagship acoustic system still needs silicon iterations and OEM trust; mid-tier Android sockets are far more contestable and that is where AI-accelerated design lands first.
Chinese analog competitor design wins · Pricing pressure in mid-tier Android · New entrants in haptics/codecs
relevance 70 · confidence 55

AI Lens thesis

AI reaches Cirrus through hardware demand and engineering cost, not through disintermediation: the company sells physical mixed-signal silicon per device, so agents cannot route around it and no software substitute exists for an ADC/DAC/amplifier. The favorable channel is content growth — voice-first AI interfaces and on-device inference raise the value of low-power always-listening audio paths, spatial audio and haptics, and Cirrus is expanding into camera controllers and power ICs, evidenced by share gains (+5.3% YoY against a -1.6% industry). The unfavorable channel is that intelligence-cheapened design tooling compresses exactly the barrier protecting a single-customer franchise, and analog IP scarcity is the only thing standing between Cirrus and price-down-per-generation. Margin structure (GM 52.8%, OpM 23%, FCF $637M) says AI productivity in verification and characterization can drop to the bottom line — provided the monopsony customer does not capture it in annual price negotiations.

Thesis breaker Evidence of the customer shipping its own boosted amplifier or codec in a flagship, or Cirrus guiding content-per-unit down, breaks the favorable read; conversely a durable non-handset revenue line above ~25% of sales breaks the concentration bear.
What the market may be underestimating

Upside Always-on voice AI forces the audio subsystem into the power budget conversation, where Cirrus's low-power analog expertise is worth premium ASPs rather than the usual per-generation price-down — and the same design skills sell into AI-PC power delivery.

Downside AI-driven EDA productivity is not symmetric: it helps well-capitalized internal silicon teams and Chinese analog challengers more than it helps a mid-cap incumbent, so Cirrus's design-cost advantage narrows even in scenarios where it keeps every socket.

Outcome range spread 44

33Bear case
58Central case
77Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-08-17 16:32

The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.

Growing Content-per-device gains at its anchor smartphone customer plus a genuine laptop/PMIC second leg have CRUS growing double digits into a contracting semiconductor category, but the structural ceiling is mid-single-digit and set by one customer's roadmap. conf 7/10
Share gain Category shrinking · Semiconductor category median recent growth is -1.1% with industry revenue at a -5.7% CAGR and earnings at -30.3%; CRUS printed +5.3% recent YoY and +12.9% in the newest matched quarter — a roughly +7pp positive gap. The company is winning dollar content inside a flat-unit end market while the broader industry pool shrinks.
Next 2 quarters
Growing
A fresh flagship handset ramp with expanded per-device content, plus laptop design wins layering in, against comps the company has already been beating. Operating leverage means earnings growth should again outrun revenue growth.
↑ above expectations
Year 1
Growing
Full-year revenue should compound off content wins and the second (laptop/PMIC) leg, with earnings growing faster on fabless leverage. But the quarterly trend is flagged decelerating and the growth is cycle-timed, so the year is Growing rather than Accelerating.
≈ inline with expectations
Years 2–3
Holding
Structural earnings power holds rather than compounds: handset units are flat, content gains arrive in discrete per-cycle steps, and the non-handset legs are not yet large enough to change the slope. Overlaying that is a real probability of partial socket loss to customer insourcing, which caps any structural upgrade.
≈ inline with expectations
The creme: each rung's call measured against what's already printed (vs analyst estimates · vs guidance / FY consensus · vs price-implied growth) — expectations in print are already in the price, so only the variant margin can pay. Hover a rung's chip for the margin read.
Growth drivers
69 Rising silicon content per handset — Latest matched-quarter revenue +12.9% YoY against essentially flat industry units means growth is coming from dollar content, not end-market volume: smart codecs plus multiple boosted amplifiers, and now camera/haptics-adjacent mixed-signal sockets per flagship device. Content-per-unit is the one growth vector that does not require the smartphone market to grow.
53 Operating leverage on a fabless model — Operating income +16.6% and net income +26.6% versus revenue +12.9% — earnings growing ~2x revenue, with a multi-year earnings CAGR of 22.9% and FCF CAGR of 28.7% on only 5.7% revenue CAGR. Fabless mix plus a fixed R&D base converts modest top-line into materially faster earnings power, which is what the structural rungs are actually judged on.
52 Share gain against a shrinking category — Company YoY +5.3% versus industry -1.6% (a +7.0pp gap) while industry revenue compounds at -5.7% and industry earnings at -30.3%. CRUS is not riding a tide; it is taking dollars in a contracting pool, which points to socket wins rather than cycle luck.
30 Non-smartphone diversification beginning to print — Laptop codec plus power-conversion (PMIC) design wins and early AR/VR and automotive audio sockets give a second demand pool sharing the same mixed-signal IP. Still small relative to handsets, so it changes the slope of years 2-3 more than the next two prints.
Growth risks
69 Extreme customer concentration — The overwhelming majority of revenue sits with a single large smartphone OEM that has a demonstrated pattern of insourcing analog and power silicon. A single socket loss at one design cycle is a step-function revenue event no cost action can offset — this is the dominant variable in the structural rung and the reason years 2-3 cannot be graded above Holding.
43 Handset unit saturation caps the base — Underlying unit demand is flat-to-down; multi-year revenue CAGR of 5.7% versus earnings CAGR of 22.9% shows growth has been margin- and content-led. Content gains are lumpy and per-cycle, so revenue growth is inherently step-wise rather than compounding.
30 Sector in contraction with industry-wide margin compression — Sector demand score -2, category median recent growth -1.1%, and industry gross/operating/net margins down 2.6/7.0/6.8pp over three years. CRUS has resisted so far, but a broad pricing reset at the OEM level would pressure the margin expansion that is doing most of the earnings work.
30 Quarterly trend flagged decelerating — Revenue-confidence diagnostics label the quarterly trend decelerating even as the matched-quarter YoY is strong — consistent with a favorable comp and a front-loaded product cycle rather than a durable step-up in run-rate.
16 China demand and macro drag — Meaningful China exposure into a Macro Headwinds backdrop (10y 4.63) adds variance to handset build plans and to the timing, not the existence, of content revenue.
The world is shifting from more devices to richer devices. Handset units are saturated, so the growth available to an audio/mixed-signal IP owner comes from adding sockets per device — more amplifiers, smarter codecs, power conversion — and from carrying that same analog IP into laptops, spatial-computing headsets and cabins. That is a real, mechanically identifiable path and CRUS is on it. The countervailing world fact is vertical integration: the largest device makers keep pulling analog and power silicon in-house, and CRUS's fate is therefore decided inside one customer's bill of materials rather than by end-market demand. AI at the device level is a modest positive here (always-on voice sensing, more DSP content) but it is not the swing factor. Net: durable near-term growth, capped and single-point-of-failure structural growth.
Growth position composite +13
ShrinkingStallingHoldingGrowingAccelerating
70Next 2 quarters · Growing
70Year 1 · Growing
50Years 2–3 · Holding
+13Composite (−100…+100)
A research prediction, not advice. Forward-graded: each rung is scored against the prints that follow it. Not an input to the GEM designation — track record first.
Claude Reading
Independent analyst synthesis · claude-opus-4-7 · generated 2026-08-15 13:05:35
Verdict I dissent from both the synthesis "fair value with +31% upside" and from the thesis-eval's -25 bearishness. This is a genuinely fair-valued stock at $121, plus or minus $10, and the models are triangulating around the right price for the wrong reasons. The 15.4x PE, 10.5x EV/EBITDA, and 10.5% FCF yield are appropriate for a high-quality but concentrated, cyclical, low-growth semi with no debt. There's no fat pitch here. If you want to own CRUS, wait for either (a) evidence of non-Apple revenue diversification hitting >15% of total, which would justify multiple expansion to 18-20x, or (b) another 15-20% drawdown to sub-$105 where the FCF yield exceeds 12% and cycle-normalized math works with margin of safety. At $121, the risk-reward is symmetric: you're paid ~10% FCF yield to underwrite a binary Apple renewal risk, which is fine but not compelling. The margin expansion bull case (top bull, weight 45) is the crux — if FY27 holds 20%+ net margins through a full cycle, I'm wrong and $150 is right; if margins mean-revert to 15-16%, I'm right and $121 is the ceiling. That's the trade you have to have a view on.

The raw numbers tell a seasonal Apple-supplier story with a worrying kink. Fiscal Q1 2026 (June 2025 quarter, $407M rev, 14.9% NM) and the just-reported June 2026 quarter ($459.7M, 16.7% NM) show the trough quarters, but stacking them YoY: revenue +12.9% and net income +26.7% — genuinely healthy. However, the December-quarter peaks tell a different story: Dec 2025 rev $580.6M vs Dec 2024 $555.7M is only +4.5%, and Sep 2025 vs Sep 2024 is +3.5%. So the recent acceleration is off a soft comp, not evidence of structural reacceleration. Annual FY26 revenue of $2.00B on $1.90B is +5.3% — the "steady compounder" label fits, but only barely, and the 22.9% earnings CAGR is margin-mix flattery on a modest top line. FCF of $636M on a $6.07B market cap is a ~10.5% FCF yield with net cash of $801M and zero debt — that is the actual anchor here, not the growth story.

Where I break from the synthesis: the composite $153–159 fair value implying +31% upside is too generous, and the -25 thesis-evaluation score is too bearish. Both are overreacting to the same fact — Apple concentration ~80-90%. The DCF that spits out $159 is almost certainly extrapolating the FY26 margin print (20.7% net, 23% operating) as a run-rate. But look at what happened in FY23: revenue $1.90B, net income collapsed to $176.7M (9.3% margin). This business has demonstrated it can lose half its earnings power in a single cycle without losing the Apple socket. Any DCF that doesn't cycle-adjust margins to a ~15-16% blended net is overstating intrinsic value by 20-25%. Cycle-normalized FCF is probably closer to $475-500M, which on a 13-15x multiple gets you $95-110/share plus $16/sh net cash = $110-125 fair value. That's roughly where the stock trades. The market is not being stupid.

The contrarian read the models are underweighting: insider behavior is uniformly programmatic option-exercise-and-sell — no open-market buys anywhere on this list. In a stock supposedly 24% below DCF fair value with a fortress balance sheet, insiders with the best information are not stepping up. The "Neutral Insider" tag understates this; when the CFO/execs believe the stock is cheap, you see at least token 10b5-1 amendment or opportunistic buys. You see none. Second, the pre-flight notes a 33% drawdown from 52-week highs — that context is missing from the synthesis. The stock has already re-rated from what was likely ~$180, meaning the "market pessimism" the narrative layer describes has already been substantially priced. Third, the decelerating quarterly trend flagged in Secondary Signals is real: peak quarters going from +4-5% YoY is not a growth stock trajectory, it's a plateau, and plateaus in Apple-supplier land tend to precede content-share losses on next-gen designs (see Skyworks, Qorvo).

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-15 13:05:50
Verdict Undervalued at $121 — the market is pricing a fragile handset supplier, but the debt-free balance sheet, 10%+ FCF yield, and sustained 20%+ net-margin earnings power support value closer to $140.

Cirrus looks cheaper than the market is giving it credit for, but only if you underwrite it as a cash-rich, low-growth compounder rather than a durable growth semiconductor name. The core fact pattern is stronger than the stock’s multiple implies: annual revenue has moved from $1.79B in FY24 to $1.90B in FY25 to $2.00B in FY26, while net income climbed much faster from $274.6M to $331.5M to $414.4M. That is not financial engineering alone; operating margin expanded from 19.2% in FY24 to 21.6% in FY25 to 23.1% in FY26, and free cash flow reached $636.6M against just $14.0M of capex. On a $6.07B market cap, that is roughly a 10.5% FCF yield, and with $800.9M of cash and no debt, the enterprise value is closer to $5.27B, making the EV/revenue of 2.7x and EV/EBITDA of 10.5x look more like industrial-quality pricing than high-return analog/mixed-signal pricing. A business producing 19.5% ROE and 28.9% ROIC with no leverage should not automatically trade at 15.4x earnings unless the earnings base is viewed as fragile.

The quarterly data says the business is not rolling over. The latest quarter at $459.7M of revenue and $76.9M of net income was up from $407.3M and $60.7M in the comparable quarter a year earlier, so revenue grew about 12.9% and earnings about 26.7%. The quarter before that was $448.5M and $81.8M versus $424.5M and $71.3M, again positive growth. Yes, the seasonal December and September quarters remain the profit peak at $580.6M/$140.3M and $561.0M/$131.6M, but that seasonality is normal for a consumer-exposed chip supplier; what matters is that each corresponding quarter has stepped up year over year and margins have held at levels well above the 2024 run-rate. In other words, the market seems to be acting as if FY26 margins near 21% net are temporary, yet the most recent four quarters still add to about $2.05B of revenue and about $430.6M of net income, actually ahead of reported FY26. That does not prove structural growth, but it does argue the earnings power has at least stabilized at a higher level.

What stands out most is the disconnect between the “mature earner” label and the quality of the cash economics. This is a fabless semiconductor company with gross margin of 52.8%, operating cash flow of $650.6M, and essentially all of that turning into free cash flow. Companies with those traits often deserve a discount if they are shrinking or balance-sheet stressed; Cirrus is neither. Book value is $2.13B, so at 3.0x book the stock is not optically deep value, but that misses the point because this is an IP business, not an asset-heavy manufacturer. If I haircut earnings meaningfully and assume normalized net income closer to $350M rather than the latest $414M, the stock is still around 17x depressed earnings for a debt-free company with nearly 32% of its market cap backed by cash. That leaves room for a fair value in the mid-$130s to low-$140s even without assigning much credit to new product vectors.

The strongest argument against this bullish read is simple and serious: the market may be right that these are peak economics on customer concentration, and the multiple is low because one design-loss event can permanently impair earnings. The quarterly progression also shows some softening sequentially from the December quarter’s 24.2% net margin to 18.2% in March and 16.7% in June; if the business is seasonal and heavily dependent on one customer cycle, trailing annual numbers can flatter sustainability. Annual revenue in FY23 was also $1.90B, essentially the same as FY25, so the top line is not compounding cleanly; the real story has been margin recovery, not durable demand expansion. If those margins are being supported by a favorable product mix that has now peaked, then 15x earnings is not cheap at all. A skeptic would also note that repeated insider option exercises and immediate sales, while not a strong red flag, certainly do not signal aggressive insider conviction at these levels.

What would change my mind is not another quarter of decent profitability; it is evidence that the current earnings base is less durable than it looks. If revenue falls back below roughly $1.9B annualized and net margin slips toward the mid-teens again, or if quarterly revenue in the seasonally weaker periods starts posting negative year-over-year comparisons after this recent strength, I would view the stock as fairly valued at best around $120. Conversely, if Cirrus can hold annual revenue above $2.0B while sustaining operating margin above 22% and free cash flow above $550M, the market should stop treating it like a structurally ex-growth supplier. In that case, a rerating toward 18x earnings or about 12x-13x EV/EBITDA would support something like $140-$150.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-15 13:06:25
Verdict Undervalued cash compounder at $121 — ~10% FCF yield, 15.4x PE, zero debt; fair value closer to $150–160 unless Apple content breaks

Cirrus Logic’s numbers describe a high-return fabless franchise that is compounding cash faster than the top line, not a growth story the market has already paid for. Fiscal 2026 delivered $2.00B revenue, $460M operating income, and $414M net income on a 52.8% gross margin and 20.8% net margin; free cash flow hit $637M against only $14M of capex, producing an FCF yield north of 10% at the $6.07B enterprise. That cash conversion sits on a pristine balance sheet—$801M cash, zero debt, current ratio 7.4—and ROIC of 28.9%. Revenue CAGR of 5.7% is modest and lumpy with Apple’s seasonal cadence, but earnings and FCF have compounded at 23% and 29% respectively because operating leverage and mix have steadily lifted margins from the mid-teens net toward 20%+. The June quarter’s $460M and 16.7% net margin already clear the year-ago $407M and 14.9%, so the expansion is still visible in the soft half of the year. At 15.4x trailing earnings, 10.5x EV/EBITDA, and 2.7x EV/sales, the multiple is pricing a mature, low-growth supplier, not a business that just printed a 10%+ FCF yield with expanding returns on capital.

The contradiction with the more bearish model layers is valuation, not operations. The composite fair-value work pointing near $153–$159 is directionally consistent with capitalizing mid-teens earnings power and a clean balance sheet; the current $121 embeds a roughly 25–30% discount that only makes sense if Apple concentration is treated as an imminent binary. Quarterly revenue still tracks the classic smartphone content cycle—$560–580M in the September/December windows, $410–460M in the March/June troughs—without evidence of content loss or share erosion inside that pattern. Insider prints are mechanical option exercise-and-sell pairs, not discretionary distribution. Against that backdrop, the “steady compounder priced for perfection” bear narrative does not match the tape: 15x earnings and a double-digit FCF yield is the opposite of perfection pricing.

The strongest opposing case is the one the thesis engine already weights heavily: customer concentration is unhedgeable. If Apple redesigns audio/haptics in-house, dual-sources aggressively, or simply cuts units, revenue and the entire margin stack re-rate overnight; nothing on the balance sheet or in the product roadmap fully offsets a multi-hundred-million-dollar content hit. Skeptics can also argue that 20%+ net margins and peak content-per-device are coincident, so the earnings CAGR of 23% is a trailing artifact that will fade to the 5–6% revenue growth rate, leaving a 15x multiple looking ordinary rather than cheap once growth normalizes. Smartphone saturation and China demand softness reinforce that path. Those risks are real and justify a conglomerate discount; they do not justify a 10%+ FCF yield on a zero-debt business whose latest full year still grew revenue 5% and net income 25%. The market is paid to worry about Apple; it is already collecting that premium in the price.

What flips the view is concrete evidence on either side of the concentration and margin debates. A sustained drop in content dollars per Apple device, a design-win loss disclosed in a 10-K or supplier note, or two consecutive non-seasonal revenue declines would invalidate the undervaluation case and push the stock toward a mid-teens multiple on lower earnings. Conversely, a material non-Apple design win that shows up as sequential mix shift, or another year of net margins holding above 20% with FCF above $600M, would confirm the compounder multiple belongs higher and close the gap toward the mid-$150s.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 7.3; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 5.0
fairly valued · conviction 3/5 · Δ -2.3 vs panel · self: 5.0
GPT gpt-5.4 8.0
undervalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +0.7 vs panel · self: 7.0
Grok grok-4.5 9.0
undervalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ +1.7 vs panel · self: 7.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-15 13:09:26
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality name, starter here, scale on weakness 7/10
Genuine high-quality semi at a fair-but-not-fat price - modestly cheap with a friendly tape, but the whole thesis rides on one customer, so I want a better entry, not a full push here.
The cruxWhether Apple keeps designing Cirrus content in vs pulling audio/mixed-signal in-house - that single variable dominates both the multiple and the durability of the FCF.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from CRUS's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+63
Strong
edge √Σ 136 · risk √Σ 62 · conf 8/10

The financial trajectory is genuinely strong: revenue has grown from $1.78B (2022) to $2.00B (2026), gross margin has expanded from 51.8% to 52.8%, operating margin has climbed from 20.6% to 23.0%, and net income has risen from $326M to $414M. Free cash flow has more than 6x-ed from $98.6M to $636.6M, a FCF/revenue conversion of ~32% that comfortably exceeds net income (OCF/NI 1.35x, accruals -3.9% of assets). Beneish M of -2.92 and Altman Z of 12.19 corroborate clean, real earnings. Balance sheet is a fortress-lite: $800.9M liquid cash, zero net debt, self-funding with no external capital needs. Share count discipline is a standout for a semi: diluted shares fell from 59.1M to 52.8M (-2.8% CAGR), with buybacks 269% of SBC and SBC only 4.1% of revenue - shareholders are net accreted, not diluted. Insider tape is neutral-to-mildly-negative (9 sells / 0 buys, ~$4.9M), but volumes are modest and consistent with routine option-exercise-and-sell behavior rather than an exit signal. The main unmodelled risk is well-known customer concentration (Apple) in a fabless model - not visible in these numbers but structurally caps the durability grade.

Strengths 4
m78
Cash conversion is elite and accelerating
FCF grew from $98.6M (2022) to $636.6M (2026); OCF/NI of 1.35x and accruals -3.9% of assets confirm earnings are backed by cash, not accrual gymnastics.
m72
Fortress balance sheet, zero leverage
$800.9M liquid cash, net cash $800.9M, Altman Z of 12.19 - survival is not a question under any realistic scenario.
m65
Per-share value protected, not diluted
Diluted shares shrank from 59.1M to 52.8M (-10.7% over 4 years); buybacks 269% of SBC despite semis-industry norms of heavy dilution.
m55
Margin trajectory quietly improving
Gross margin 51.8% to 52.8% and operating margin 20.6% to 23.0% over five years, with net income up 27% - operating leverage is real.
Concerns 3
m55
Presumed customer concentration risk
Cirrus is widely known to derive a majority of revenue from a single smartphone customer; this is not visible in the derived data but is a structural quality cap that filings would confirm.
m22
One-way insider tape
9 sales, 0 open-market buys totaling ~$4.9M over 12 months; mostly option-exercise-and-sell so not alarming, but no insider is voting with cash either.
m18
Revenue growth is lumpy, not linear
Revenue dipped from $1.90B (2023) to $1.79B (2024) before recovering - consistent with a product-cycle-dependent business rather than a compounder.
This is a genuinely well-run business - the numbers tell a consistent story of margin expansion, elite cash conversion, a fortress balance sheet, and management that actually returns capital and shrinks the share count rather than diluting it, which is rare in semis. Earnings integrity checks are all clean and I see no accounting concerns. What keeps me from calling it a fortress is the structural reality that this is a fabless designer heavily tied to a single mega-customer's product cycles, which explains the 2024 revenue dip and caps how durable I can call the moat without further verification. Insider selling is routine, not a signal. Strong business, quality-of-earnings is real, but the durability question is genuine.
Verify before trusting this (6)
  • 10-K customer concentration disclosure - what % of revenue is Apple in FY2026
  • Segment/product mix beyond smartphone audio - HPMS/high-performance mixed-signal traction
  • R&D as % of revenue trend and whether it is sustaining product roadmap
  • Any long-term supply/design-win commentary in the most recent 10-K risk factors
  • 10b5-1 plan disclosures behind the insider option-exercise-and-sell pattern
  • Inventory and days-sales trends given the fabless model and macro semi cycle
Valuation / Mispricing
+10
Modestly Cheap
edge √Σ 79 · risk √Σ 69 · conf 6/10
price $121 vs deserved ~$135-150, ~15-25% gap - modestly cheap, not a fat pitch attractive below $110.00

The e2e composite pegs deserved value at $153 (signal-adjusted $159) against a $121 price, roughly a 26-31% gap. The DCF at $135 is the most defensible anchor - it implies about 11% upside, which is a modest margin of safety rather than a screaming bargain. The EPV floor at $72 is a useful reminder that if growth stalls entirely the business is worth well below today's price, so you are paying for continued execution. The anchored P/E of $273 is a runaway output - it assumes prior multiple regimes hold - and I discount it heavily.

Cheap signals 3
m55
DCF above price with clean earnings
DCF fair value of $134.51 vs $121.09 gives ~11% upside, and the earnings-quality lens is clean (score 3) so no haircut needed to that number.
m45
Composite fair value materially above price
Composite FV of $153.38 and signal-adjusted $159.17 imply ~26-31% upside; even trimming for method noise, the central tendency sits above spot.
m35
Debt-free balance sheet supports deserved value
Quality lens confirms a fortress balance sheet and disciplined buybacks, which raises the deserved multiple and cushions downside.
Rich / priced-in 3
m50
EPV floor far below price
EPV of $71.58 is ~41% below spot - if growth optionality (AR/VR, non-Apple diversification) fails to materialize, the stock is worth roughly half.
m40
Customer concentration caps deserved multiple
Apple exposure means a single-customer shock could compress the multiple sharply; this is why the anchored P/E of $273 is not credible.
m25
Cyclical smartphone end-market
Mature handset demand and China macro limit how much premium the market will pay - the gap is real but not extreme.
Modestly cheap, not a table-pounder. The DCF at $135 is my honest anchor and it says ~11% upside - fine, but not enough margin of safety given single-customer risk. I would get interested below $110 where the DCF gap widens to ~20%+ and the EPV floor is less scary in relative terms. At $121 it is a hold-quality name at a hold-quality price.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Apple content per device trajectory in next iPhone cycle
  • non-Apple / laptop and HPMS revenue mix progression
  • FY guidance on gross margin sustainability at current ~52% level
  • any one-time inventory or customer prepayment items in recent quarters
General Sentiment
+42
Tailwind
tail √Σ 98 · head √Σ 53 · conf 6/10

The macro backdrop is mildly supportive: a risk-on regime (+52), VIX at 14.3, and indices near highs let a beta-1.18 semi like CRUS ride the tape rather than fight it. Semis have been a favored cohort, and CRUS just delivered a Q1 2027 print described as record earnings fueled by smartphone demand plus mixed-signal expansion - that is exactly the kind of headline that reinforces the steady-compounder narrative and keeps sellers passive. Momentum reads strong_positive, consistent with a name where the story and the tape are pulling the same direction. That said, the narrative is only moderate intensity with low cult coefficient, so this is a gentle push, not a squeeze. The bear whisper (China softness, smartphone maturity, customer concentration on Apple) is dormant but ready to reactivate on any guide-down, and higher-for-longer rates (10y 4.63%, market PE 26.2) cap multiple expansion for the whole semi complex. Analyst tone appears constructive post-print but not euphoric. Net: a real but ordinary tailwind - the tape is friendly, the last news cycle was positive, and no active negative narrative is pressing on the name right now.

Tailwinds 4
m55
Risk-on tape amplified by beta 1.18
A +52 risk-on regime with VIX 14 lands harder on a 1.18-beta semi than on a defensive - CRUS gets a real lift from the friendly tape, not just background drift.
m60
Record earnings headline still fresh
The Q1 2027 print framed as record earnings with expanding mixed-signal content is the most recent news imprint, keeping the bull narrative (sticky IP, AI device content) in control of the tape.
m45
Semis remain a favored cohort
The AI/spatial-computing narrative that dominates 2026 tape flows generously into audio and mixed-signal names by association, even when the actual exposure is modest.
m30
Steady-compounder archetype gets benefit of the doubt
Moderate-durability narrative with low cult means no euphoric setup to unwind; the story is credible enough that sellers stay passive while the tape is calm.
Headwinds 2
m40
Higher-for-longer rates cap the multiple
10y at 4.63% and market PE 26.2 create a low ceiling for further multiple expansion in premium-valued semis; CRUS can rally with earnings but the tape resists re-rating.
m35
Latent China / Apple concentration whisper
The bear story (smartphone saturation, China macro, customer concentration) is quiet but not gone - any negative datapoint from Apple's supply chain or China consumer would reactivate it quickly on a 1.18-beta name.
Net leans tailwind but only modestly. The tape is friendly to a 1.18-beta semi, the most recent news is a record-earnings headline, and there is no active negative narrative pressing on the name. But the story is a steady-compounder with low cult coefficient - it does not attract momentum flows the way an AI-pure-play does - and higher-for-longer rates keep a lid on multiple expansion for the whole cohort. I read this as a stock that sentiment is quietly helping, not driving; the pressure is in CRUS's favor, but it is a breeze, not a wind.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Analyst target revisions in the days following the Q1 2027 print - upward revisions would confirm the tailwind, silence suggests the beat is already priced
  • Any Apple supply-chain datapoint or iPhone unit guide - would immediately reactivate customer-concentration bear thesis
  • VIX behavior and semi-sector relative strength - a break in the risk-on regime would hit high-beta semis first
  • Whether mixed-signal / non-smartphone revenue commentary gets picked up as a fresh narrative angle
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+14
Mildly favorable — content tailwind against an insourcing shadow
opp √Σ 70 · thr √Σ 34 · conf 6/10

AI reaches Cirrus through hardware demand and engineering cost, not through disintermediation: the company sells physical mixed-signal silicon per device, so agents cannot route around it and no software substitute exists for an ADC/DAC/amplifier. The favorable channel is content growth — voice-first AI interfaces and on-device inference raise the value of low-power always-listening audio paths, spatial audio and haptics, and Cirrus is expanding into camera controllers and power ICs, evidenced by share gains (+5.3% YoY against a -1.6% industry). The unfavorable channel is that intelligence-cheapened design tooling compresses exactly the barrier protecting a single-customer franchise, and analog IP scarcity is the only thing standing between Cirrus and price-down-per-generation. Margin structure (GM 52.8%, OpM 23%, FCF $637M) says AI productivity in verification and characterization can drop to the bottom line — provided the monopsony customer does not capture it in annual price negotiations.

AI opportunities 4
m56
Underlying Need Persistence
Devices must convert sound to bits and back; voice AI makes that need larger, not smaller.
m33
Solution Persistence
Discrete mixed-signal companion chips persist, but SoC absorption is the live threat.
m19
Scarcity Migration
Analog/mixed-signal talent and silicon-proven IP become relatively scarcer as digital design automates.
m18
AI Margin Conversion
Engineering-productivity gains can reach the bottom line, but a monopsony buyer may claim them.
AI threats 1
m34
Customer DIY Preference
The single dominant customer has both the appetite and, increasingly, the tooling to build it internally.
Own it for rising audio/sensing content per AI-era device — but the whole thesis is a bet on one customer choosing not to build the chip itself. AI's favorable channel here is physical: voice-first assistants make the always-on analog front end power- and latency-critical, supporting content dollars rather than seat-based deflation, while AI-assisted verification lets a 52.8% GM / 23% OpM business convert design productivity to cash (FCF already $637M). The kill switch is customer_diy_preference at 31 with relevance 90 — insourcing is the only mechanism that matters at scale, and cheaper design tooling nudges it the wrong way. Watch teardown-level content per flagship and the non-audio revenue mix (camera controllers, power ICs) before consensus does; a durable non-handset line above roughly a quarter of sales re-rates the structure, a lost amplifier socket ends the argument.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • Customer concentration percentage trend
  • In-house amplifier/codec appearances
  • Multi-year supply agreement renewals
  • Teardown evidence of Cirrus content
  • Customer's in-house analog hiring
  • Socket count per device generation
  • Content per unit disclosures
  • Smartphone and AI-PC unit trends
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
+13
Growing
edge √Σ 106 · risk √Σ 93 · conf 7/10

The world is shifting from more devices to richer devices. Handset units are saturated, so the growth available to an audio/mixed-signal IP owner comes from adding sockets per device — more amplifiers, smarter codecs, power conversion — and from carrying that same analog IP into laptops, spatial-computing headsets and cabins. That is a real, mechanically identifiable path and CRUS is on it. The countervailing world fact is vertical integration: the largest device makers keep pulling analog and power silicon in-house, and CRUS's fate is therefore decided inside one customer's bill of materials rather than by end-market demand. AI at the device level is a modest positive here (always-on voice sensing, more DSP content) but it is not the swing factor. Net: durable near-term growth, capped and single-point-of-failure structural growth.

Growth drivers 4
m69
Rising silicon content per handset
Latest matched-quarter revenue +12.9% YoY against essentially flat industry units means growth is coming from dollar content, not end-market volume: smart codecs plus multiple boosted amplifiers, and now camera/haptics-adjacent mixed-signal sockets per flagship device. Content-per-unit is the one growth vector that does not require the smartphone market to grow.
m53
Operating leverage on a fabless model
Operating income +16.6% and net income +26.6% versus revenue +12.9% — earnings growing ~2x revenue, with a multi-year earnings CAGR of 22.9% and FCF CAGR of 28.7% on only 5.7% revenue CAGR. Fabless mix plus a fixed R&D base converts modest top-line into materially faster earnings power, which is what the structural rungs are actually judged on.
m52
Share gain against a shrinking category
Company YoY +5.3% versus industry -1.6% (a +7.0pp gap) while industry revenue compounds at -5.7% and industry earnings at -30.3%. CRUS is not riding a tide; it is taking dollars in a contracting pool, which points to socket wins rather than cycle luck.
m30
Non-smartphone diversification beginning to print
Laptop codec plus power-conversion (PMIC) design wins and early AR/VR and automotive audio sockets give a second demand pool sharing the same mixed-signal IP. Still small relative to handsets, so it changes the slope of years 2-3 more than the next two prints.
Growth risks 5
m69
Extreme customer concentration
The overwhelming majority of revenue sits with a single large smartphone OEM that has a demonstrated pattern of insourcing analog and power silicon. A single socket loss at one design cycle is a step-function revenue event no cost action can offset — this is the dominant variable in the structural rung and the reason years 2-3 cannot be graded above Holding.
m43
Handset unit saturation caps the base
Underlying unit demand is flat-to-down; multi-year revenue CAGR of 5.7% versus earnings CAGR of 22.9% shows growth has been margin- and content-led. Content gains are lumpy and per-cycle, so revenue growth is inherently step-wise rather than compounding.
m30
Sector in contraction with industry-wide margin compression
Sector demand score -2, category median recent growth -1.1%, and industry gross/operating/net margins down 2.6/7.0/6.8pp over three years. CRUS has resisted so far, but a broad pricing reset at the OEM level would pressure the margin expansion that is doing most of the earnings work.
m30
Quarterly trend flagged decelerating
Revenue-confidence diagnostics label the quarterly trend decelerating even as the matched-quarter YoY is strong — consistent with a favorable comp and a front-loaded product cycle rather than a durable step-up in run-rate.
m16
China demand and macro drag
Meaningful China exposure into a Macro Headwinds backdrop (10y 4.63) adds variance to handset build plans and to the timing, not the existence, of content revenue.
vs expectations: ~6m above · 1y inline · 2-3y inline
The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Unavailable View weakness chain →

Prediction unavailable. valuation-synthesis has no result for CRUS — the prediction needs its fair-value anchors.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for CRUS. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06