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.
39.32%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 334.38%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
13.47%
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.
-39.45%
Negative yoy deferred tax while PINS stands at 73.16%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
0.69%
Less SBC growth vs. PINS's 21.24%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-125.42%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -144.62%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-213.26%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -126.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
23000.00%
Inventory growth of 23000.00% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
85.19%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -132.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-509.09%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -202.63%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-16.67%
Negative yoy while PINS is 649.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
10.94%
Some CFO growth while PINS is negative at -42.90%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-3.03%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -51.05%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-383.11%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-81.57%
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.
93.37%
We have some liquidation growth while PINS is negative at -10.74%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
118.63%
Growth of 118.63% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-49.60%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -820.30%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
-99.96%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.