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.
-0.23%
Negative revenue growth while PINS stands at 3.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-1.85%
Negative gross profit growth while PINS is at 4.28%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-15.72%
Negative EBIT growth while PINS is at 38.27%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-15.72%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 38.27%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-11.55%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 35.41%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.90%
Negative EPS growth while PINS is at 36.36%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.80%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PINS is at 40.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.75%
Share reduction while PINS is at 1.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.70%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.38%
OCF growth under 50% of PINS's 58.13%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
13.25%
FCF growth under 50% of PINS's 59.62%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
2515.65%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 131.83%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
323.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 131.83%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
115.61%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 131.83%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
2045.23%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 1007.83%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
303.30%
Below 50% of PINS's 1007.83%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
91.78%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 1007.83%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
3383.84%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 446.95% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
259.26%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 446.95%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
82.59%
Below 50% of PINS's 446.95%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
152.30%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 128.88%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
69.35%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 128.88%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
3.33%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 7.87%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.60%
Negative asset growth while PINS invests at 9.26%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.79%
We have a declining book value while PINS shows 6.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.27%
Debt shrinking faster vs. PINS's 55.67%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
3.61%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 2.32%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
24.64%
We expand SG&A while PINS cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.