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.
22.91%
Some net income increase while SONO is negative at -2.52%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
5.52%
Less D&A growth vs. SONO's 18.72%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-38.11%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-1.59%
Negative yoy SBC while SONO is 0.55%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
101.89%
Well above SONO's 182.68% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
-582.54%
AR is negative yoy while SONO is 135.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-624.15%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with SONO at -4822.14%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
798.79%
Lower AP growth vs. SONO's 2420.64%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
-5.58%
Negative yoy usage while SONO is 6961.54%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-135.82%
Negative yoy while SONO is 59.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
80.54%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of SONO's 221.89%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
-69.49%
Both yoy lines negative, with SONO at -44.29%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
55.25%
Acquisition growth of 55.25% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-48.98%
Negative yoy purchasing while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
29.60%
Liquidation growth of 29.60% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-181.58%
We reduce yoy other investing while SONO is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-212.64%
Both yoy lines negative, with SONO at -44.29%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
35.47%
Debt repayment growth of 35.47% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
28000.00%
We slightly raise equity while SONO is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
-9.90%
We cut yoy buybacks while SONO is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.