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.
13.77%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 42.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
9.26%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 54.77%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
0.97%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 67.70%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
0.97%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 67.70%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
50.98%
Net income growth at 50-75% of PINS's 71.36%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
50.98%
EPS growth at 50-75% of PINS's 72.39%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
50.98%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of PINS's 72.39%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-0.60%
Share reduction while PINS is at 2.98%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.43%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 2.98%. 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.
-6.72%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 27.88%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-4.11%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
535.93%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
150.87%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
77.06%
Positive 3Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
386.50%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 117.12%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
123.45%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to PINS's 117.12%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
53.51%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 117.12%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
397.91%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
121.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
100.41%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
415.36%
Positive growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
90.01%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
45.12%
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.
30.41%
AR growth well above PINS's 50.41%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-28.69%
Inventory is declining while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.89%
Similar asset growth to PINS's 4.95%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
3.94%
BV/share growth above 1.5x PINS's 0.45%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
7.42%
Debt growth far above PINS's 7.59%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
10.19%
We increase R&D while PINS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
18.99%
SG&A growth well above PINS's 12.08%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.