The New York Times Company holds the cleaner structural position, with stability as the main driver and growth adding further support. Pinterest still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, The New York Times Company is in better shape — its trend is intact while Pinterest's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — The New York Times Company's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in stability, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 8 points in favour of The New York Times Company.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair shares a valid long-term profile match, but the trajectories are not especially close.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and revenue stability.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in stability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The New York Times Company still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Pinterest, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Pinterest, with a forward P/E that is 19.1 turns lower there.
Stability is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though valuation still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the NYT vs PINS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how NYT and PINS each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.