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.
5.07%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 2887.94%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
-58.87%
Negative yoy D&A while PINS is 8.61%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
8.44%
Some yoy growth while PINS is negative at -91.60%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
-1.46%
Both cut yoy SBC, with PINS at -5.03%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-585.17%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -33.34%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-131.05%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -80.70%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
174.06%
Inventory growth of 174.06% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
91.48%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -1.77%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-489.07%
Negative yoy usage while PINS is 1117.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
160.57%
Some yoy increase while PINS is negative at -15.32%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-38.30%
Negative yoy CFO while PINS is 138.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-36.80%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -337.04%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
76.98%
Some acquisitions while PINS is negative at -166.24%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
-102.04%
Negative yoy purchasing while PINS stands at 40.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
111.91%
We have some liquidation growth while PINS is negative at -27.77%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
89.49%
Growth well above PINS's 166.24%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
13.75%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. PINS's 153.98%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-36.42%
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.
-2.56%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -12.85%. Martin Whitman would see an overall reduced environment for buybacks in the niche or cyclical factor driving capital usage.