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.
-10.67%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.49%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-13.91%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-13.91%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-35.94%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-35.06%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-36.36%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.34%
Share reduction while PINS is at 2.47%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.42%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 2.47%. 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.
-20.63%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 499.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-34.97%
Negative FCF growth while PINS is at 1426.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
462.67%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 61.16%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
136.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 61.16%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
67.45%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 61.16%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
310.44%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 229.53%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
71.66%
Below 50% of PINS's 229.53%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
20.76%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 229.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
223.85%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
92.91%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.86%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
392.71%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 64.22%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
86.28%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 64.22%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
41.48%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 64.22%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
-13.67%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-11.01%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.91%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.45%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
4.90%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-5.57%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-13.86%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.