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.
25.59%
Revenue growth above 1.5x PINS's 16.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
26.28%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x PINS's 21.27%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
38.73%
Positive EBIT growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
38.73%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 87.79%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
172.88%
Net income growth at 50-75% of PINS's 334.38%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
222.95%
EPS growth at 50-75% of PINS's 334.09%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
222.95%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of PINS's 335.66%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
9.95%
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.
3.55%
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.
172.40%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
511.39%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
29.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 310.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
29.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 217.57%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
29.36%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 46.66%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
23.26%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 424.98%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
23.26%
Below 50% of PINS's 592.95%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
23.26%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 69.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-86.86%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while PINS is at 166.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-86.86%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while PINS is 133.35%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-86.86%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PINS is 188.03%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
121.48%
Equity/share CAGR of 121.48% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
121.48%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with PINS's 118.78%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
121.48%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 50.13%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-40.18%
Firm’s AR is declining while PINS shows 7.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-5.83%
Negative asset growth while PINS invests at 2.28%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-24.57%
We have a declining book value while PINS shows 2.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
161.20%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
21.72%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 8.43%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
15.05%
SG&A growth well above PINS's 22.36%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.