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.
10.07%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 28.14%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
7.31%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 37.90%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
5.98%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 80.20%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
5.98%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 80.20%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-2.06%
Negative net income growth while PINS stands at 126.83%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-0.93%
Negative EPS growth while PINS is at 125.90%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-0.94%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PINS is at 126.59%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.79%
Share reduction while PINS is at 3.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.15%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 0.78%. 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.
1.12%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-0.36%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
487.85%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
153.30%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
76.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 82.93%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
416.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 187.05%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
147.60%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 187.05%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
74.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 408.58%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
382.23%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
585.69%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
36.38%
Below 50% of PINS's 140.84%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
264.85%
Positive growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
80.83%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
35.82%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to PINS's 35.23%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.28%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 33.36%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-15.40%
Inventory is declining while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.96%
Asset growth well under 50% of PINS's 4.62%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.80%
BV/share growth above 1.5x PINS's 0.87%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
2.62%
Debt shrinking faster vs. PINS's 24.95%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-0.06%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 4.14%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
16.65%
SG&A growth well above PINS's 32.98%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.