PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
6.59%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 16.75%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
15.06%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of PINS's 21.27%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
150.74%
Positive EBIT growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
150.74%
Operating income growth above 1.5x PINS's 87.79%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
62.42%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 334.38%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
70.81%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 334.09%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
70.81%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 335.66%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
28.79%
Share count expansion well above PINS's 0.05%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
28.79%
Diluted share count expanding well above PINS's 0.07%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.31%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
146.20%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
34.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 310.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
34.25%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 217.57%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
34.25%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 46.66%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-55.09%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while PINS stands at 424.98%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-55.09%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while PINS is at 592.95%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-55.09%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while PINS stands at 69.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-126.38%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while PINS is at 166.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-126.38%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while PINS is 133.35%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-126.38%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PINS is 188.03%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.98%
AR growth well above PINS's 7.06%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.44%
Asset growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.28%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-17.31%
We have a declining book value while PINS shows 2.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
27.76%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-65.39%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 8.43%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-62.69%
We cut SG&A while PINS invests at 22.36%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.