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.
1.80%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 28.65%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
8.94%
Some D&A expansion while PINS is negative at -27.76%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-437.71%
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.
5.99%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -23.30%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
178.67%
Slight usage while PINS is negative at -107.28%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-103.07%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -97.47%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
130.26%
Some inventory rise while PINS is negative at -141.98%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
117.49%
AP growth well above PINS's 174.28%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
529.81%
Some yoy usage while PINS is negative at -2.78%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-233.76%
Both negative yoy, with PINS at -59.84%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
22.20%
Some CFO growth while PINS is negative at -163.75%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
10.22%
Lower CapEx growth vs. PINS's 38.33%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
13.16%
Acquisition growth of 13.16% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
28.45%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. PINS's 80.19%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
-42.30%
Both yoy lines are negative, with PINS at -33.77%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
-71.12%
We reduce yoy other investing while PINS is 51265.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-357.39%
We reduce yoy invests while PINS stands at 173.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
98.20%
Debt repayment growth of 98.20% 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.
19.35%
Buyback growth below 50% of PINS's 70.98%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.