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.
20.65%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 71.36%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
3.67%
Less D&A growth vs. PINS's 13.74%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-325.71%
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.
1.92%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -13.88%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-275.14%
Both reduce yoy usage, with PINS at -1455.20%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-417.38%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -1362.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-45.87%
Negative yoy inventory while PINS is 369.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
25.84%
Lower AP growth vs. PINS's 60.36%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
67.35%
Growth well above PINS's 37.97%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-120.00%
Both negative yoy, with PINS at -19.04%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-2.41%
Negative yoy CFO while PINS is 27.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-16.08%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -56.71%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-4350.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
35.68%
Some yoy expansion while PINS is negative at -48.67%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-10.56%
We reduce yoy sales while PINS is 49.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
730.00%
We have some outflow growth while PINS is negative at -135.02%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
20.08%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -48.69%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
2.08%
Debt repayment growth of 2.08% 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.
-12.89%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 59.07%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.