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.
4.85%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 22.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.19%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 29.50%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-60.11%
Negative EBIT growth while PINS is at 24.76%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-60.11%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 24.76%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-66.01%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 27.13%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-66.18%
Negative EPS growth while PINS is at 28.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-65.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PINS is at 28.67%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.04%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.27%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.97%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
7.18%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
449.82%
10Y CAGR of 449.82% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
121.66%
5Y CAGR of 121.66% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
81.20%
3Y CAGR of 81.20% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
418.39%
OCF/share CAGR of 418.39% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
106.17%
OCF/share CAGR of 106.17% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
42.67%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 42.67% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
131.45%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 131.45% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
-5.24%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-20.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
464.92%
Equity/share CAGR of 464.92% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
96.69%
Equity/share CAGR of 96.69% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
42.55%
Equity/share CAGR of 42.55% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
2.56%
AR growth of 2.56% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
9.75%
Inventory growth of 9.75% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.26%
Asset growth of 2.26% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
0.77%
BV/share growth of 0.77% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-24.92%
We’re deleveraging while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.49%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 2.59%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.54%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 11.17%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.