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.
16.87%
Some net income increase while PINS is negative at -1648.44%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
11.25%
D&A growth well above PINS's 22.18%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
79.11%
Deferred tax of 79.11% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
17.32%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -27.44%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-48.49%
Negative yoy working capital usage while PINS is 297.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
157.35%
AR growth well above PINS's 187.69%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-93.21%
Negative yoy inventory while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-98.00%
Negative yoy AP while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-93.35%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -72.41%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
60.00%
Some yoy increase while PINS is negative at -62.88%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
2.48%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of PINS's 207.52%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
-24.31%
Negative yoy CapEx while PINS is 52.28%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-188.24%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
23.71%
Purchases growth of 23.71% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
119.06%
Liquidation growth of 119.06% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-133.33%
We reduce yoy other investing while PINS is 872.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
74.22%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. PINS's 1264.24%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-85.18%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.