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.
69.11%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 334.38%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
-18.10%
Negative yoy D&A while PINS is 4.14%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
209.44%
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.
-7.98%
Negative yoy SBC while PINS is 21.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-141.45%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -144.62%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-3097.22%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -126.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
1834.62%
Inventory growth of 1834.62% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
532.28%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -132.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-125.26%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -202.63%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-642.98%
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.
6.17%
Some CFO growth while PINS is negative at -42.90%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-46.92%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -51.05%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
111.38%
Acquisition growth of 111.38% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
27.55%
Some yoy expansion while PINS is negative at -11.47%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
12.42%
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.
-298.10%
We reduce yoy other investing while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
65.25%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -820.30%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
14.42%
Debt repayment growth of 14.42% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.