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
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
3.56%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 16.75%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.13%
Negative gross profit growth while PINS is at 21.27%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-12.54%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-12.54%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 87.79%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-18.26%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 334.38%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-16.00%
Negative EPS growth while PINS is at 334.09%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-20.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PINS is at 335.66%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.29%
Share count expansion well above PINS's 0.05%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.27%
Diluted share count expanding well above PINS's 0.07%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.52%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
19.99%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
1554.24%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 310.48%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
159.83%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 217.57%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
62.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 46.66%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
1929.07%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 424.98%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
105.56%
Below 50% of PINS's 592.95%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
44.85%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 69.25%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
4151.22%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 166.88% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
56.23%
Below 50% of PINS's 133.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-4.20%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PINS is 188.03%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
2979.42%
Equity/share CAGR of 2979.42% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
173.94%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 118.78%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
72.03%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 50.13%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
20.41%
AR growth well above PINS's 7.06%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-4.78%
Inventory is declining while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.43%
Asset growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.28%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.90%
1.25-1.5x PINS's 2.58%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-0.04%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
18.63%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 8.43%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.11%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 22.36%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.