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.
-9.11%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-8.02%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.19%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.19%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-11.76%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.99%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-11.63%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.82%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.19%
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.
-0.81%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 37.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
9.43%
FCF growth under 50% of PINS's 35.45%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
1386.70%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 272.31%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
171.50%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 185.79%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
57.51%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 41.22%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
1428.23%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 1639.18%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
132.17%
Below 50% of PINS's 738.49%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
77.78%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 21.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
1875.09%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 68.89% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
471.78%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 53.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
47.28%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
811.59%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 126.11%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
94.07%
Below 50% of PINS's 486.69%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
26.51%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to PINS's 25.01%. 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.
-16.94%
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.
-2.95%
Negative asset growth while PINS invests at 2.01%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.57%
We have a declining book value while PINS shows 1.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1.07%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-5.13%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 4.59%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
9.14%
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.