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.
11.71%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of PINS's 17.50%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
15.61%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of PINS's 24.93%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
22.02%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 69.94%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
22.02%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 69.94%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
36.42%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 83.25%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
37.10%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 83.29%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
35.45%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 83.29%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.73%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.62%
Slight or no buyback while PINS is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
23.65%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
55.02%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
1609.29%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 192.25%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
175.94%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 192.25%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
91.82%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 126.10%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
1168.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 198.51%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
213.53%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to PINS's 198.51%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
399.99%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 249.43%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
2178.64%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 39.47% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
74.03%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 39.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
68.48%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to PINS's 69.82%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
951.13%
Equity/share CAGR of 951.13% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
92.65%
Equity/share CAGR of 92.65% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
35.94%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 22.91%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
13.28%
AR growth well above PINS's 11.49%. 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.
12.03%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
8.20%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
31.34%
Debt growth far above PINS's 2.20%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-0.39%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 1.14%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
23.43%
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.