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.
9.62%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 334.38%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
4.84%
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.
-411.27%
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.
-5.90%
Negative yoy SBC while PINS is 21.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
55.92%
Slight usage while PINS is negative at -144.62%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-209.89%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -126.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
223.33%
Inventory growth of 223.33% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-1458.33%
Both negative yoy AP, with PINS at -132.86%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
64.71%
Some yoy usage while PINS is negative at -202.63%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-39.29%
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.
5.56%
Some CFO growth while PINS is negative at -42.90%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
14.08%
Some CapEx rise while PINS is negative at -51.05%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-21.88%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-53.63%
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.
66.65%
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.
192.50%
Growth of 192.50% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
30.13%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -820.30%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
-2.66%
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.