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.
23.23%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 59.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
23.00%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 74.85%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
39.58%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 311.42%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
39.58%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 311.42%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
35.39%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 320.59%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
36.14%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 312.50%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
36.59%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 287.50%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.57%
Share reduction while PINS is at 4.98%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.42%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 14.20%. 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.
33.37%
OCF growth under 50% of PINS's 208.70%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
48.30%
FCF growth under 50% of PINS's 202.08%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
538.53%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
171.50%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
80.89%
Positive 3Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
509.16%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 264.04%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
259.77%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to PINS's 264.04%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
126.95%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 264.04%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
467.15%
Below 50% of PINS's 1152.08%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
214.79%
Below 50% of PINS's 1152.08%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
618.14%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of PINS's 1152.08%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
355.85%
Positive growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
88.22%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
49.96%
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.
-100.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while PINS invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
23.01%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 66.16%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-12.81%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
6.81%
Asset growth at 50-75% of PINS's 13.40%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
5.12%
Under 50% of PINS's 10.41%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
0.77%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
2.42%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 2.20%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
16.57%
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.