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.
-10.94%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-5.42%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-28.72%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-28.72%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
22.70%
Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
25.57%
Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
25.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.93%
Share reduction while PINS is at 1.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.67%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 1.00%. 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.
-3.54%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 214.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
30.87%
FCF growth under 50% of PINS's 217.04%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
1780.52%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 202.15%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
172.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 202.15%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
78.96%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 87.48%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
1763.47%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 792.83%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
102.70%
Below 50% of PINS's 792.83%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
41.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 170.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2418.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
30.29%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
29.05%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
910.23%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 119.31%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
82.99%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 119.31%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
31.32%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to PINS's 33.55%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
-17.99%
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.
-0.67%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.23%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
3.70%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.99%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-22.59%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.