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.
6.90%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 17.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
8.97%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 24.93%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
25.40%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 69.94%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
25.40%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 69.94%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
22.04%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 83.25%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
22.88%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 83.29%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
23.08%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 83.29%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.88%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.46%
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.
21.94%
Positive OCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
26.47%
Positive FCF growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
455.27%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 192.25%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
150.51%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 192.25%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
109.68%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 126.10%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
539.62%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 198.51%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
210.25%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to PINS's 198.51%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
120.50%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 249.43%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
497.37%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 39.47% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
530.41%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 39.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
184.10%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 69.82%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
255.67%
Equity/share CAGR of 255.67% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
80.83%
Equity/share CAGR of 80.83% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
38.69%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 22.91%. 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.
7.68%
AR growth well above PINS's 11.49%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-3.63%
Inventory is declining while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.67%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.31%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.17%
We’re deleveraging while PINS stands at 2.20%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-7.67%
Our R&D shrinks while PINS invests at 1.14%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.29%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.