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.
-2.65%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 349.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
9.55%
D&A growth well above PINS's 6.39%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-93.75%
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.
1.03%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -43.98%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
475.00%
Slight usage while PINS is negative at -3023.87%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-330.90%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -407.43%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
93.85%
Some inventory rise while PINS is negative at -35.92%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
144.94%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -66.87%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
79.25%
Growth well above PINS's 10.19%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-2.21%
Negative yoy while PINS is 147.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-1.69%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with PINS at -47.99%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
-34.06%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -12.52%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-116.67%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
6.21%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. PINS's 29.08%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
46.36%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x PINS's 5.82%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
45.00%
We have some outflow growth while PINS is negative at -110.52%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
33.94%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. PINS's 6284.80%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
99.10%
Debt repayment growth of 99.10% 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.
-20.45%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.