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.
-66.01%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 27.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
6.45%
Less D&A growth vs. PINS's 15.12%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-672.22%
Negative yoy deferred tax while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-1.79%
Both cut yoy SBC, with PINS at -18.10%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
226.76%
Slight usage while PINS is negative at -125.12%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-118.35%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -162.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
412.16%
Some inventory rise while PINS is negative at -3.74%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
-218.85%
Both negative yoy AP, with PINS at -126.72%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
-239.58%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -0.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
71.35%
Some yoy increase while PINS is negative at -3.21%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-12.97%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with PINS at -413.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
24.96%
CapEx growth well above PINS's 35.13%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
85.28%
Acquisition growth of 85.28% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-59.08%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -157.10%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
71.24%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x PINS's 12.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
-36.67%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -113.93%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
57.00%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -121.39%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
14.48%
Debt repayment growth of 14.48% 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.
5.57%
Buyback growth of 5.57% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.