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.
-8.00%
Negative revenue growth while PINS stands at 16.75%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-9.66%
Negative gross profit growth while PINS is at 21.27%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-15.10%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-15.10%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 87.79%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-26.87%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 334.38%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-28.00%
Negative EPS growth while PINS is at 334.09%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-28.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PINS is at 335.66%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.84%
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.
0.71%
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.
7.39%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
12.38%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
322.21%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to PINS's 310.48%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
322.21%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 217.57%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
153.95%
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.
329.24%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 424.98%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
329.24%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 592.95%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
192.33%
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.
90.30%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 166.88%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
90.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 133.35%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
88.29%
Below 50% of PINS's 188.03%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
408.11%
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.
-10.13%
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.
4.54%
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.
3.03%
1.25-1.5x PINS's 2.58%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-20.17%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-4.41%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 8.43%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-6.29%
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.