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.
-25.60%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with PINS at -188.10%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
1.28%
Less D&A growth vs. PINS's 4.63%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-232.73%
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.
22.90%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -68.14%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
120.81%
Well above PINS's 193.83% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
140.60%
AR growth well above PINS's 172.91%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-122.34%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with PINS at -230.37%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-154.91%
Negative yoy AP while PINS is 825.87%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
478.16%
Growth well above PINS's 30.02%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
21.21%
Some yoy increase while PINS is negative at -529.87%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-7.60%
Negative yoy CFO while PINS is 275.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
34.50%
CapEx growth well above PINS's 18.69%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
-153.85%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-58.21%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -24.67%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
50.88%
We have some liquidation growth while PINS is negative at -19.50%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
17.24%
Less 'other investing' outflow yoy vs. PINS's 76.80%. David Dodd would see a stronger short-term cash position unless competitor invests more wisely.
21.64%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -108.50%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
-500.00%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-100.00%
Negative yoy issuance while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-14.15%
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.