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.
16.07%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 33.77%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
17.57%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 39.37%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
20.74%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 82.28%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
20.74%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 82.28%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
11.87%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 85.86%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
13.76%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 80.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
14.29%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 78.57%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-2.04%
Share reduction while PINS is at 1.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.10%
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.
28.48%
Similar OCF growth to PINS's 27.77%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
30.23%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x PINS's 27.01%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
2514.07%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
300.48%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
105.40%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 113.56%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
3016.94%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 427.57%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
284.75%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 427.57%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
143.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 875.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2890.34%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 899.30% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
202.70%
Below 50% of PINS's 899.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
54.20%
Below 50% of PINS's 156.04%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
2138.24%
Positive growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
121.04%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
53.16%
Below 50% of PINS's 257.47%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
16.14%
AR growth well above PINS's 29.37%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.12%
Negative asset growth while PINS invests at 12.19%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.41%
We have a declining book value while PINS shows 11.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
9.75%
Debt growth far above PINS's 10.47%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
11.56%
R&D dropping or stable vs. PINS's 29.53%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
18.34%
SG&A growth well above PINS's 28.57%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.