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.
-6.95%
Negative revenue growth while PINS stands at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-10.97%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-19.98%
Negative EBIT growth while PINS is at 28.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-19.98%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 28.45%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
1.80%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 28.65%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
2.00%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 32.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
4.08%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 32.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.68%
Share reduction while PINS is at 1.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.76%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 1.81%. 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.
22.20%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
57.95%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
424.42%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 29.26%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
116.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 29.26%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
49.52%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 29.26%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
526.76%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 34.07%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
100.74%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 34.07%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
91.95%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 34.07%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
253.21%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
77.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
100.54%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
376.74%
Equity/share CAGR of 376.74% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
85.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 85.85% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
41.98%
Equity/share CAGR of 41.98% 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.
-9.02%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-8.32%
Inventory is declining while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.86%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.50%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-4.94%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
0.81%
We increase R&D while PINS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-12.11%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.