PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
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.
-20.96%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 26.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
0.94%
Less D&A growth vs. SONO's 13.77%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
41.75%
Deferred tax of 41.75% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-1.97%
Negative yoy SBC while SONO is 9.81%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-62.68%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SONO at -197.07%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-132.26%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SONO at -143.22%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-19.19%
Negative yoy inventory while SONO is 86.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
117.70%
AP growth of 117.70% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
25.10%
Some yoy usage while SONO is negative at -87.63%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
3.08%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. SONO's 93.14%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-31.01%
Negative yoy CFO while SONO is 9.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
21.72%
Some CapEx rise while SONO is negative at -60.58%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-262.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
46.93%
Purchases growth of 46.93% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-31.75%
We reduce yoy sales while SONO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
21.28%
Growth of 21.28% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
77.61%
We have mild expansions while SONO is negative at -60.58%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-99.63%
Negative yoy issuance while SONO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
0.95%
Buyback growth of 0.95% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.