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.
-8.23%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.76%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-4.10%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-4.10%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
10.47%
Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
11.32%
Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
11.43%
Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.90%
Share reduction while PINS is at 1.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.96%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 1.00%. 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.
-0.44%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 214.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
7.50%
FCF growth under 50% of PINS's 217.04%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
416.67%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 202.15%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
143.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 202.15%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
82.13%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 87.48%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
569.23%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 792.83%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
119.56%
Below 50% of PINS's 792.83%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
120.53%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 170.94%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
365.21%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
74.07%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
136.51%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
257.50%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 119.31%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
76.38%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 119.31%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
37.61%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 33.55%. 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.
-10.49%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-13.30%
Inventory is declining while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.16%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.78%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-10.72%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
11.70%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 0.42%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-16.18%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.