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.
16.41%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 43.63%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
9.76%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 61.90%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-4.89%
Negative EBIT growth while PINS is at 296.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.89%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 296.42%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-2.65%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 349.10%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-3.03%
Negative EPS growth while PINS is at 337.53%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-1.54%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PINS is at 337.53%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.08%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.42%
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.
-1.69%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-25.50%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
522.21%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
124.41%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
82.11%
Positive 3Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
452.66%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 57.75%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
138.81%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 57.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
100.21%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 57.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
2013.08%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 290.29% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
155.29%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 290.29%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
79.75%
Below 50% of PINS's 290.29%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
468.09%
Positive growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
95.96%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
45.98%
Positive short-term equity growth while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
17.30%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 59.83%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-8.66%
Inventory is declining while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
5.08%
Asset growth at 75-90% of PINS's 5.78%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
4.67%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.65%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
15.33%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 4.61%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
20.35%
SG&A growth well above PINS's 10.43%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.