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.
9.29%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 28.47%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
7.84%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 34.64%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
1.69%
EBIT growth below 50% of PINS's 4521.74%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
8.59%
Operating income growth under 50% of PINS's 4521.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
0.89%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 5946.19%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
1.40%
EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 5988.89%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
1.42%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of PINS's 6004.78%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.50%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.57%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.03%
Dividend reduction while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
27.41%
OCF growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.41%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
40.82%
FCF growth above 1.5x PINS's 2.50%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
491.76%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 25.07%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
135.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 140.50%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
38.81%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 31.51%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
582.49%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 479.03%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
205.43%
Below 50% of PINS's 2114.49%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
70.02%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 15.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
519.46%
Below 50% of PINS's 10095.10%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
180.16%
Below 50% of PINS's 4410.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
39.33%
Below 50% of PINS's 920.22%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
245.45%
Positive growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
81.81%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 95.64%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
40.02%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 50.84%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match 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.
6.59%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PINS's 31.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.65%
Asset growth well under 50% of PINS's 53.04%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.02%
Under 50% of PINS's 65.06%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-5.43%
We’re deleveraging while PINS stands at 20.33%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.37%
We increase R&D while PINS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
8.70%
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.