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.
-0.85%
Negative revenue growth while PINS stands at 2.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.16%
Negative gross profit growth while PINS is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.92%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.92%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-13.07%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-12.30%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-12.40%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.28%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.07%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 1.05%. 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.
20.24%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
27.66%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
394.18%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 147.73%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
165.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 147.73%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
81.87%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 105.06%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
488.24%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with PINS's 519.15%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
152.32%
Below 50% of PINS's 519.15%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
60.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 768.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
544.72%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
120.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
109.80%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 56.22%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
276.02%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 163.52%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
72.20%
Below 50% of PINS's 163.52%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
38.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 34.67%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-2.42%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
59.39%
Inventory growth of 59.39% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
0.86%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.58%
Under 50% of PINS's 1.87%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
0.68%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
4.39%
R&D dropping or stable vs. PINS's 9.07%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
2.32%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PINS's 4.84%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.