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.
2.46%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 15.84%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
3.04%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 16.84%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-3.19%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-3.19%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-2.64%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-1.61%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-1.63%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.27%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.84%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 0.81%. 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.
-22.64%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-17.79%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
465.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 179.88%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
181.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 179.88%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
88.65%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 70.65%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
352.71%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 292.02%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
175.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 292.02%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
62.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 262.39%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
469.47%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 24.02% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
377.49%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 24.02%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
69.60%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of PINS's 97.51%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
291.14%
Equity/share CAGR of 291.14% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
81.13%
Equity/share CAGR of 81.13% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
40.11%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 1.26%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
4.07%
AR growth well above PINS's 8.13%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
44.63%
We show growth while PINS is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.54%
Negative asset growth while PINS invests at 3.82%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.82%
BV/share growth above 1.5x PINS's 0.36%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.08%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
7.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. PINS's 19.41%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
11.83%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 27.48%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.