PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
238.00 - 242.07
140.53 - 242.25
26.77M / 38.44M (Avg.)
25.64 | 9.39
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-29.30%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 334.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
5.25%
D&A growth well above PINS's 4.14%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
2164.29%
Well above PINS's 73.16% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
9.09%
Less SBC growth vs. PINS's 21.24%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-13.04%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -144.62%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
126.89%
AR growth while PINS is negative at -126.90%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-100.19%
Negative yoy inventory while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
164.29%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -132.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-93.07%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -202.63%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
121.43%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. PINS's 649.10%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-10.04%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with PINS at -42.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
65.03%
Some CapEx rise while PINS is negative at -51.05%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
28.85%
Acquisition growth of 28.85% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-19.70%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -11.47%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
-32.24%
Both yoy lines are negative, with PINS at -10.74%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
38.80%
Growth of 38.80% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-55.18%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -820.30%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
-79.04%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 9.52%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.