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.
3.99%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of PINS's 7.06%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
5.93%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 25.89%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-0.03%
Negative EBIT growth while PINS is at 88.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-0.03%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 88.54%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-28.94%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 89.24%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-29.17%
Negative EPS growth while PINS is at 91.22%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-28.17%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PINS is at 91.22%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.17%
Share reduction while PINS is at 23.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.25%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 23.18%. 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.
22.48%
OCF growth under 50% of PINS's 115.10%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
34.35%
FCF growth under 50% of PINS's 98.19%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
522.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 20.81%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
139.50%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 20.81%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
79.01%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 20.81%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
418.27%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 148.27%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
152.12%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to PINS's 148.27%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
55.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 148.27%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
293.93%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
152.15%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
38.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
428.15%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 95.68%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
92.80%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with PINS's 95.68%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
44.27%
Below 50% of PINS's 95.68%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
-1.11%
Firm’s AR is declining while PINS shows 3.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
45.33%
Inventory growth of 45.33% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.31%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.62%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
4.45%
Debt growth far above PINS's 3.41%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
5.49%
We increase R&D while PINS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
15.11%
We expand SG&A while PINS cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.