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.
50.98%
Net income growth at 50-75% of PINS's 71.36%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
16.88%
D&A growth well above PINS's 13.74%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
12.97%
Deferred tax of 12.97% 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.
0.80%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -13.88%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-172.52%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -1455.20%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-436400.00%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -1362.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
264.67%
Inventory growth well above PINS's 369.56%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
1328.07%
AP growth well above PINS's 60.36%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-2601.59%
Negative yoy usage while PINS is 37.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-161.93%
Both negative yoy, with PINS at -19.04%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-6.72%
Negative yoy CFO while PINS is 27.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
10.10%
Some CapEx rise while PINS is negative at -56.71%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-1600.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
46.03%
Some yoy expansion while PINS is negative at -48.67%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-32.27%
We reduce yoy sales while PINS is 49.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-68.07%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -135.02%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
47.42%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -48.69%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
67.59%
Debt repayment growth of 67.59% 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.
-7.06%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 59.07%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.