Meta Platforms, Inc. (META)

Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.

Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.

Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.

Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.

Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.

Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.

Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.

Share reduction while PINS is at 253.89%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.

Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 253.89%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.

10Y CAGR of 1265.41% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.

5Y CAGR of 590.20% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.

3Y CAGR of 223.40% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.

OCF/share CAGR of 1800.35% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.

OCF/share CAGR of 819.34% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.

3Y OCF/share CAGR of 342.72% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.

10Y net income/share CAGR of 1685.31% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.

Net income/share CAGR of 1832.70% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.

3Y net income/share CAGR of 838.17% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.

Equity/share CAGR of 452.07% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.

Equity/share CAGR of 98.19% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.

Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.

No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.

Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.

Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.

No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.