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.
7.17%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 29.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.50%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 21.54%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
38.92%
Positive EBIT growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
38.92%
Positive operating income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
49.42%
Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
50.00%
Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
47.92%
Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.11%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.13%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.22%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-11.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
541.81%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 64.01%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
137.40%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 64.01%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
78.99%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 64.01%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
614.22%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
118.25%
Positive OCF/share growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
36.82%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
509.68%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
188.70%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
101.55%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
453.67%
Equity/share CAGR of 453.67% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
95.22%
Equity/share CAGR of 95.22% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
48.52%
Equity/share CAGR of 48.52% 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.
10.68%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 25.98%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-8.45%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
4.79%
Asset growth well under 50% of PINS's 109.17%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.87%
Under 50% of PINS's 490.45%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
7.25%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.05%
R&D dropping or stable vs. PINS's 1006.89%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.37%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 418.00%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.