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.
-3.84%
Negative revenue growth while PINS stands at 2.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.91%
Negative gross profit growth while PINS is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-32.23%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-32.23%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-34.28%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-33.60%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-33.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.81%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.96%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 1.05%. 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.
-20.55%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-93.17%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1881.51%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 147.73%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
195.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 147.73%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
68.19%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 105.06%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
3397.72%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 519.15%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
74.19%
Below 50% of PINS's 519.15%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
11.55%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 768.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
6821.46%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
2.91%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-22.70%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PINS is 56.22%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
689.98%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 163.52%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
91.95%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 163.52%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
41.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 34.67%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-2.59%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.37%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.52%
We have a declining book value while PINS shows 1.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
61.20%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.52%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 9.07%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
8.84%
SG&A growth well above PINS's 4.84%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.