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
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
12.00%
Revenue growth under 50% of PINS's 29.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
10.75%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PINS's 21.54%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
4.89%
Positive EBIT growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
4.89%
Positive operating income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
7.70%
Positive net income growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
8.24%
Positive EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.06%
Positive diluted EPS growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.60%
Slight or no buybacks while PINS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.21%
Slight or no buyback while PINS is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.45%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-8.94%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1511.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 64.01%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
425.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 64.01%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
165.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x PINS's 64.01%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
5605.55%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
482.17%
Positive OCF/share growth while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
172.88%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
831.23%
Positive 10Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
200.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
16.43%
Positive short-term CAGR while PINS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
338.44%
Equity/share CAGR of 338.44% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
78.46%
Equity/share CAGR of 78.46% while PINS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
16.03%
AR growth well above PINS's 25.98%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.88%
Asset growth well under 50% of PINS's 109.17%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.99%
Under 50% of PINS's 490.45%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
8.32%
We have some new debt while PINS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
15.91%
R&D dropping or stable vs. PINS's 1006.89%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-7.33%
We cut SG&A while PINS invests at 418.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.