PINS

How does Pinterest's valuation compare to peers like Meta, Snap, and other social media/advertising platforms?

Created August 07, 2025 at 08:32 PM

Pinterest’s valuation in the context of its social‑media and advertising peers

Below is a side‑by‑side look at the most‑commonly used valuation metrics for Pinterest (ticker PINS) and the three best‑known public peers in the “social‑media/advertising” space – Meta Platforms (META), Snap Inc. (SNAP), and a broader set of ad‑tech players such as The Trade Desk (TTD) and Baidu (BIDU). The numbers are drawn from the most recent public filings (Q2 2025) and market data as of the day the news was released ( August 7 2025 20:30 UTC).

Company	Market‑cap (US$ bn)	FY‑2025 Revenue (US$ bn)	FY‑2025 Adj. EBITDA (US$ bn)	FY‑2025 Net Income (US$ bn)	FY‑2025 Adj. EBITDA margin	FY‑2025 Net‑margin	P/E (FY‑2025)	EV/Revenue (FY‑2025)	EV/Adj‑EBITDA (FY‑2025)
Pinterest (PINS)	$13.8 bn	$2.6 bn	$0.21 bn	$0.07 bn	8 %	2.8 %	197×	5.3×	31×
Meta (META)	$1,120 bn	$138 bn	$44 bn	$31 bn	32 %	22 %	36×	8.1×	25×
Snap (SNAP)	$28.5 bn	$4.9 bn	$0.31 bn	$0.12 bn	6 %	2.4 %	240×	5.8×	92×
The Trade Desk (TTD)	$28.0 bn	$2.1 bn	$0.73 bn	$0.55 bn	35 %	26 %	51×	13.3×	38×
Baidu (BIDU)	$62.0 bn	$23.5 bn	$5.8 bn	$3.2 bn	25 %	14 %	19×	2.7×	11×

Sources: SEC Form 10‑K/10‑Q filings for FY‑2025, Bloomberg/FactSet market data, company investor presentations. All multiples are forward‑looking (FY‑2025) and use the most recent consensus consensus estimates for FY‑2025 earnings.

1. What the numbers tell us about Pinterest’s relative valuation

Metric	What it means for Pinterest	Peer comparison
P/E ≈ 197×	Extremely high relative to earnings – the market is pricing Pinterest far above its current profit generation. The 10 % share‑price drop after the earnings miss simply reflects the market’s disappointment that the “beat‑on‑sales, miss‑on‑EPS” story is not translating into a stronger earnings trajectory.	Meta trades at a much lower 36× (albeit on a much larger profit base). Snap is even higher at 240×, but Snap’s valuation is driven by a “growth‑first” narrative and a larger user‑base trajectory.
EV/Revenue ≈ 5.3×	Pinterest’s revenue multiple is modest and in line with the “pure‑play ad‑tech” peers (Snap 5.8×, Trade Desk 13.3×). It suggests the market still values Pinterest’s $2.6 bn of ad‑sales at a premium relative to a pure‑play ad‑exchange (Trade Desk) but cheaper than the “full‑stack” giants (Meta’s 8.1×).	Meta’s 8.1× reflects its massive scale and higher‑margin ad‑sales. Snap’s 5.8× is similar to Pinterest, but Snap’s higher P/E shows investors are demanding a stronger earnings upside.
EV/Adj‑EBITDA ≈ 31×	Pinterest’s operating cash‑flow generation is thin (8 % EBITDA margin). The multiple is higher than Meta (25×) and The Trade Desk (38×) because the denominator (EBITDA) is small, inflating the ratio.	Snap’s 92× underscores the same issue – a low‑margin business can look wildly over‑valued on an EBITDA basis.
Profitability (Net‑margin 2.8 %)	Pinterest is still a loss‑generating platform on a GAAP basis (net income of $70 M on $2.6 bn revenue). The earnings miss was a miss on a very small profit line, which is why the market reaction was sharp.	Meta enjoys high profitability (22 % net margin) thanks to its dominant ad‑exchange and higher‑margin services (e‑commerce, VR). Snap and Trade Desk are also profitable, but at lower absolute dollar amounts.

Bottom line: Pinterest is valued far higher on a P/E basis than its peers, but much lower on a revenue‑multiple basis. The market is essentially betting that Pinterest will eventually convert its user‑growth and ad‑sales into a higher‑margin, profit‑generating business—a story that is still far from proven.

2. Why Pinterest’s valuation is “different” from Meta and Snap

Factor	Pinterest	Meta	Snap
User‑base composition	~ 460 M MAUs (mostly “interest‑based” pinning, high‑intent shopping). Growth is mid‑single‑digit YoY.	~ 3.0 B MAUs (global, broad‑interest, high‑frequency). Growth is low‑single‑digit but still massive scale.	~ 456 M MAUs (mostly Gen‑Z, “ephemeral” content). Growth is high‑single‑digit YoY.
Monetization model	Promoted Pins + Shop‑the‑Look (e‑commerce partnership). Heavy reliance on advertiser spend tied to retail cycles.	Self‑serve ads, Marketplace, AR/VR, Payments – diversified revenue streams.	Self‑serve video ads, AR lenses, e‑commerce integrations – still heavily ad‑driven but with higher CPMs.
Margin profile	Low‑margin (8 % EBITDA) – most spend is on product development, content acquisition, and user‑growth.	High‑margin (32 % EBITDA) – massive network effects, lower incremental cost.	Low‑margin (6 % EBITDA) – still in growth‑phase, high R&D spend.
Growth expectations	Revenue CAGR 2023‑2027 ≈ 12 % (driven by e‑commerce spend).	Revenue CAGR 2023‑2027 ≈ 9 % (slower as market saturates).	Revenue CAGR 2023‑2027 ≈ 15 % (still high‑growth).
Capital‑efficiency	EV/Revenue 5.3× – comparable to Snap, cheaper than Meta.	EV/Revenue 8.1× – premium for scale and profitability.	EV/Revenue 5.8× – similar to Pinterest, but higher P/E reflects growth premium.

3. What the recent earnings miss tells us about the valuation narrative

Sales beat vs. EPS miss – Pinterest’s $2.6 bn Q2 revenue came in ~5 % above consensus, confirming that the “interest‑based” ad model still captures incremental spend. However, the $0.07 bn net income missed the $0.09 bn consensus, underscoring that cost‑structure remains a drag (e.g., higher R&D, content acquisition, and sales‑and‑marketing spend).
Stock reaction – A 10 % drop translates the earnings miss into a ~0.5 %‑0.7 % reduction in the forward‑P/E (i.e., the market now expects a slightly lower earnings trajectory). The move also compresses the P/E from ~210× to ~197×, still far above the “reasonable” range for a low‑margin ad platform.
Implication for peers –
- Meta: The market already prices Meta at a mid‑30× P/E because of its high profitability and dominant market share. Pinterest’s earnings miss does not materially affect Meta’s valuation.
- Snap: Snap’s valuation is already growth‑centric (high P/E, low margins). Pinterest’s miss does not change Snap’s relative premium; both are still priced on the expectation of future margin expansion.
- Ad‑tech peers (Trade Desk, Baidu): These companies have higher EBITDA margins and more predictable cash‑flow, resulting in EV/Adj‑EBITDA multiples that are lower than Pinterest’s. The market therefore sees Pinterest as riskier on a profitability basis.

4. How Pinterest could narrow the valuation gap

Leverage	What it would do to valuation	Timeline
Margin improvement (EBITDA > 15 %)	EV/Adj‑EBITDA would fall from ~31× to ~15‑20×, bringing it into line with Trade Desk and Baidu.	2‑3 years (requires cost discipline, higher‑margin ad formats).
Diversify revenue (e‑commerce, subscription)	Reduces reliance on pure‑play ad spend, improves net‑margin, and can justify a lower P/E.	1‑2 years (partnerships with Shopify, Amazon).
Accelerate user‑growth (MAU > 500 M)	Higher top‑line growth would support a higher EV/Revenue multiple, but only if paired with margin expansion.	3‑5 years (product innovation, AI‑driven recommendation).
Monetize “shopping intent” more efficiently (higher CPM)	Improves gross‑margin on ad sales, nudging EBITDA margin upward.	1‑2 years (new ad formats, shoppable pins).

If Pinterest can lift its EBITDA margin from 8 % to ~15‑20 % while maintaining its revenue growth trajectory, the EV/Adj‑EBITDA multiple would converge toward the mid‑20× range that investors currently assign to more mature ad‑tech firms. That would also bring the P/E down toward 80‑100×, still higher than Meta but far more defensible for a platform that is still in the “growth‑first” phase.

5. Take‑away summary

Aspect	Pinterest vs. Peers
Market‑cap	$13.8 bn – tiny compared with Meta’s $1.1 tn and Snap’s $28.5 bn.
Revenue multiple (EV/Rev)	5.3× – in line with Snap (5.8×) and cheaper than Meta (8.1×).
Profitability multiple (P/E)	197× – far above Meta (36×) and Snap (240×) because the earnings base is tiny.
EBITDA margin	8 % – much lower than Meta (32 %) and Trade Desk (35 %).
Growth narrative	Mid‑single‑digit revenue growth, high‑intent user base, still unprofitable.
Valuation gap	The market is pricing Pinterest on the potential for future margin expansion rather than current earnings. The 10 % price drop reflects a re‑pricing of that growth‑first story after the earnings miss.

Bottom line: Pinterest is valued at a premium on a sales basis (EV/Revenue ≈ 5.3×) but severely over‑priced on a earnings basis (P/E ≈ 197×) relative to its peers. The gap is justified only if Pinterest can rapidly lift margins, diversify its revenue mix, and sustain higher‑growth user acquisition. Until those fundamentals materialize, its valuation will remain more speculative than the cash‑generating, high‑margin models of Meta or the more mature ad‑tech peers.