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.
7.70%
Some net income increase while PINS is negative at -2699.37%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
10.85%
D&A growth well above PINS's 14.24%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-99.45%
Negative yoy deferred tax while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
29.01%
Less SBC growth vs. PINS's 163386.89%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-26.38%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -142.49%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-194.02%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -168.02%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
2.27%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. PINS's 182.26%, indicating lean supply management. David Dodd would confirm no demand shortfall.
108.33%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -103.90%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
24.80%
Growth well above PINS's 18.45%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
50.00%
Some yoy increase while PINS is negative at -73.21%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-7.45%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with PINS at -249.44%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
5.32%
Some CapEx rise while PINS is negative at -121.48%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
94.00%
Acquisition growth of 94.00% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
21.97%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. PINS's 60.19%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
30.01%
We have some liquidation growth while PINS is negative at -1.01%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-28.00%
We reduce yoy other investing while PINS is 58141.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
40.75%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. PINS's 1646.83%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-13.60%
We cut debt repayment yoy while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-86.79%
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.