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.
-8.01%
Negative revenue growth while PINS stands at 16.75%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-11.96%
Negative gross profit growth while PINS is at 21.27%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-28.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-28.68%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 87.79%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
404.65%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x PINS's 334.38%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
200.00%
EPS growth at 50-75% of PINS's 334.09%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
200.00%
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.
-6.94%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.28%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.58%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-18.84%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
97.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 310.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
97.83%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 217.57%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
97.83%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 46.66%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
106.71%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 424.98%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
106.71%
Below 50% of PINS's 592.95%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
106.71%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 69.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-7.63%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while PINS is at 166.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-7.63%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while PINS is 133.35%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-7.63%
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.
-8.34%
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.
0.40%
Asset growth well under 50% of PINS's 2.28%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
8.08%
BV/share growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.58%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-4.16%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.35%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 8.43%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.27%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 22.36%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.