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.
-2.78%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
1.28%
Positive gross profit growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
5.02%
Positive EBIT growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
5.02%
Positive operating income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
17.75%
Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
17.70%
Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.96%
Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.35%
Share reduction while PINS is at 1.68%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.13%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-14.94%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 168.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-22.39%
Negative FCF growth while PINS is at 176.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
516.16%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 163.64%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
178.82%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 163.64%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
83.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 163.64%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
480.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 1326.91%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
157.19%
Below 50% of PINS's 1326.91%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
71.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 1326.91%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
852.54%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 70.65% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
335.18%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 70.65%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
96.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 70.65%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
349.75%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 80.88%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
90.07%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 80.88%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
47.61%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 80.88%. 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.
-9.19%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
21.98%
Inventory growth of 21.98% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.34%
Asset growth at 50-75% of PINS's 3.17%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
3.72%
BV/share growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.14%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.76%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
6.59%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 4.90%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-10.51%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.