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.
2.80%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 7.79%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.82%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 9.81%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.27%
Negative EBIT growth while PINS is at 93.17%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.27%
Negative operating income growth while PINS is at 93.17%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
7.19%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 119.27%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
8.28%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 119.50%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
7.64%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 118.92%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.69%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.53%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 1.90%. 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.
6.94%
OCF growth under 50% of PINS's 73.00%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
3.78%
FCF growth under 50% of PINS's 73.68%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
446.22%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 168.99%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
151.44%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 168.99%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
79.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 51.72%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
539.72%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 671.87%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
156.71%
Below 50% of PINS's 671.87%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
94.74%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 203.06%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
603.17%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 123.91% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
136.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 123.91%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
89.09%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of PINS's 106.29%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
249.18%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 129.07%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
77.94%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 129.07%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
38.59%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 27.65%. 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.
5.71%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 14.74%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
32.54%
Inventory growth of 32.54% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.57%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x PINS's 3.21%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
2.98%
50-75% of PINS's 5.00%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-0.45%
We’re deleveraging while PINS stands at 4.81%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.33%
We increase R&D while PINS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.86%
We expand SG&A while PINS cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.