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.
187.70%
Net income growth above 1.5x PINS's 50.86%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
11.40%
Some D&A expansion while PINS is negative at -7.15%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
733.09%
Deferred tax of 733.09% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-7.58%
Both cut yoy SBC, with PINS at -1.79%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-103.79%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PINS is 83.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-114.74%
AR is negative yoy while PINS is 32.91%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-71.59%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with PINS at -0.63%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
317.93%
AP growth well above PINS's 303.59%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
1.18%
Some yoy usage while PINS is negative at -0.58%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-41.25%
Both negative yoy, with PINS at -177.57%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
30.38%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of PINS's 69.97%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
3.56%
Lower CapEx growth vs. PINS's 24.21%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
90.22%
Acquisition growth of 90.22% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-0.60%
Negative yoy purchasing while PINS stands at 40.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-43.33%
Both yoy lines are negative, with PINS at -33.71%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
5.26%
Less 'other investing' outflow yoy vs. PINS's 135.83%. David Dodd would see a stronger short-term cash position unless competitor invests more wisely.
-208.48%
We reduce yoy invests while PINS stands at 103.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
80.79%
Debt repayment growth of 80.79% 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.
-7.21%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.