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.
7.18%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 15.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.53%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 19.67%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
7.45%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 60.60%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
7.45%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 60.60%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
8.86%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 135.82%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
9.26%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 135.52%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
9.55%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 134.15%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.43%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.64%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.57%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 4.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.12%
Dividend reduction while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
0.64%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-12.84%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1280.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 247.79%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
162.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 112.05%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
52.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 29.64%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1384.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 264.99%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
155.07%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 239.53%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
66.03%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1656.69%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 115.20% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
483.93%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 100.50%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
47.08%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
778.45%
Equity/share CAGR of 778.45% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
100.36%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 0.10%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
28.76%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 18.94%. 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.
8.00%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 17.81%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.32%
Asset growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.20%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.29%
BV/share growth above 1.5x PINS's 1.08%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.95%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.60%
R&D dropping or stable vs. PINS's 11.62%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
5.98%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 13.33%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.