PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
74.33%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 334.38%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
11.73%
D&A growth well above PINS's 4.14%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
67.89%
Well above PINS's 73.16% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
-1.45%
Negative yoy SBC while PINS is 21.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-77.67%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -144.62%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-174.40%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -126.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-0.46%
Negative yoy inventory while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
222.22%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -132.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
1.08%
Some yoy usage while PINS is negative at -202.63%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-50.00%
Negative yoy while PINS is 649.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
28.97%
Some CFO growth while PINS is negative at -42.90%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
11.28%
Some CapEx rise while PINS is negative at -51.05%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
85.19%
Acquisition growth of 85.19% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-17.43%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -11.47%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
57.99%
We have some liquidation growth while PINS is negative at -10.74%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-24.24%
We reduce yoy other investing while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
17.39%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -820.30%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
47.83%
Debt repayment growth of 47.83% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.