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.
-33.30%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with PINS at -295.31%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
8.79%
Less D&A growth vs. PINS's 41.60%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
220.76%
Deferred tax of 220.76% 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.
4.87%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -27.79%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
542.90%
Well above PINS's 238.20% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
220.57%
AR growth well above PINS's 194.78%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-25.59%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with PINS at -161.56%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-139.29%
Both negative yoy AP, with PINS at -4.60%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
-30.34%
Negative yoy usage while PINS is 2.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
200.00%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. PINS's 491.79%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
21.12%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of PINS's 499.39%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
13.22%
Lower CapEx growth vs. PINS's 47.53%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
92.58%
Some acquisitions while PINS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
-65.70%
Negative yoy purchasing while PINS stands at 52.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
40.65%
Below 50% of PINS's 81.37%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
-166.67%
We reduce yoy other investing while PINS is 100.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-1.81%
We reduce yoy invests while PINS stands at 115.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
29.08%
Debt repayment growth of 29.08% 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.
3.55%
Buyback growth below 50% of PINS's 11.91%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.