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.
20.57%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 62.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
26.90%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 100.80%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
75.67%
EBIT growth above 1.5x PINS's 7.17%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
75.67%
Operating income growth above 1.5x PINS's 7.17%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
61.62%
Net income growth above 1.5x PINS's 6.48%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
62.75%
EPS growth above 1.5x PINS's 5.88%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
60.78%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x PINS's 5.88%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.34%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.17%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 2.86%. 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.
21.51%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
34.82%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
494.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 77.30%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
149.64%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 77.30%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
69.65%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 77.30%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
452.55%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
185.80%
Positive OCF/share growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
75.75%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
386.77%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
185.40%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
70.47%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
361.29%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 79.45%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
84.95%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with PINS's 79.45%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
38.30%
Below 50% of PINS's 79.45%. 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.
18.14%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 61.61%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.45%
Inventory growth of 2.45% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
7.45%
Asset growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.29%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.05%
BV/share growth above 1.5x PINS's 1.10%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
68.98%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.28%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 17.27%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.72%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 101.73%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.