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.
61.62%
Net income growth above 1.5x PINS's 6.48%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
2.72%
D&A growth well above PINS's 5.40%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
123.01%
Deferred tax of 123.01% 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.
-5.53%
Negative yoy SBC while PINS is 47.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-67.51%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -1266.53%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-4401.25%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -5161.14%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
172.57%
Inventory growth well above PINS's 166.47%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
187.67%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -129.18%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-76.40%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -1.87%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-23.06%
Negative yoy while PINS is 216.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
21.51%
Some CFO growth while PINS is negative at -153.64%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-0.28%
Negative yoy CapEx while PINS is 37.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
92.12%
Acquisition growth of 92.12% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-51.63%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -879.18%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
31.83%
At 50-75% of PINS's 58.31%. Martin Whitman questions partial disadvantage if competitor monetizes investments more efficiently.
-441.18%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -199.71%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-79.89%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -204.15%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
-74.29%
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.
-15.25%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 99.95%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.