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.
-35.94%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with PINS at -295.31%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-8.94%
Negative yoy D&A while PINS is 41.60%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
184.13%
Deferred tax of 184.13% 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.
20.64%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -27.79%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-142.06%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PINS is 238.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
159.61%
AR growth well above PINS's 194.78%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-182.41%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with PINS at -161.56%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-202.58%
Both negative yoy AP, with PINS at -4.60%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
93.40%
Growth well above PINS's 2.32%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
226.03%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. PINS's 491.79%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-20.63%
Negative yoy CFO while PINS is 499.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
0.78%
Lower CapEx growth vs. PINS's 47.53%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
91.13%
Some acquisitions while PINS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
-92.80%
Negative yoy purchasing while PINS stands at 52.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
81.73%
Similar to PINS's 81.37%. Walter Schloss finds parallel timing in investment disposals or maturities.
240.50%
Growth well above PINS's 100.05%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
60.73%
Investing outflow well above PINS's 115.07%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
-4042.55%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-39.32%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 11.91%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.