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.
-6.46%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.55%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
29.50%
Positive EBIT growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
-1.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
30.16%
Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.88%
Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
30.70%
Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.37%
Share reduction while PINS is at 0.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.46%
Reduced diluted shares while PINS is at 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.04%
Dividend growth of 0.04% while PINS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-7.58%
Negative OCF growth while PINS is at 43.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-23.69%
Negative FCF growth while PINS is at 42.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
484.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PINS's 331.63%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
147.06%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 167.83%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
43.78%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to PINS's 44.41%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
510.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PINS's 1682.13%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
255.76%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of PINS's 440.80%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
56.04%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 65.50%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
998.41%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 111.23% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
469.40%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 105.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
127.74%
Below 50% of PINS's 264.04%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
255.88%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with PINS's 238.35%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
91.05%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of PINS's 106.03%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
47.31%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to PINS's 46.87%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
-2.56%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.58%
Positive asset growth while PINS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
6.60%
Positive BV/share change while PINS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-7.45%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
3.35%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. PINS's 3.40%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-17.48%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.