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.
-12.55%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-12.15%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.77%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-24.86%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-20.13%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.83%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.32%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.28%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.92%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
4.94%
Dividend growth of 4.94% while PINS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-14.16%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 43.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-18.27%
Negative FCF growth while PINS is at 42.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1232.49%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 331.63%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
170.63%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 167.83%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
63.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 44.41%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
1476.83%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 1682.13%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
147.75%
Below 50% of PINS's 440.80%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
84.06%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 65.50%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
3548.30%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 111.23% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
285.17%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 105.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
140.43%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of PINS's 264.04%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
450.49%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 238.35%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
99.33%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with PINS's 106.03%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
61.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 46.87%. 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.
-14.59%
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.
1.51%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.59%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.94%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.25%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 3.40%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
25.86%
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.