Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL)

Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.

Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.

Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.

Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.

Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.

Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.

Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.

Share reduction more than 1.5x PINS's 253.89%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.

Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x PINS's 253.89%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.

10Y CAGR of 441.31% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.

5Y CAGR of 112.08% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.

3Y CAGR of 76.86% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.

OCF/share CAGR of 489.68% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.

OCF/share CAGR of 204.81% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.

3Y OCF/share CAGR of 72.42% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.

10Y net income/share CAGR of 548.26% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.

Net income/share CAGR of 167.25% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.

3Y net income/share CAGR of 162.10% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.

Equity/share CAGR of 495.60% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.

Equity/share CAGR of 102.69% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.

Equity/share CAGR of 45.33% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.

Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.

Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.

Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.

We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.

We cut SG&A while PINS invests at 8.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.