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.
68.51%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 1512.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
-9.77%
Negative yoy D&A while SONO is 13.89%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
116.89%
Well above SONO's 100.17% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
16.45%
SBC growth well above SONO's 13.58%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
464.53%
Less working capital growth vs. SONO's 1276.99%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
55.34%
AR growth while SONO is negative at -148.03%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
147.66%
Inventory growth well above SONO's 45.83%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
40.40%
Lower AP growth vs. SONO's 405.54%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
845.16%
Some yoy usage while SONO is negative at -296.76%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-69.19%
Both negative yoy, with SONO at -36.68%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
132.50%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of SONO's 2674.62%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
13.03%
Lower CapEx growth vs. SONO's 40.82%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
100.00%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-123.27%
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.
8.59%
Liquidation growth of 8.59% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
29.43%
Growth of 29.43% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-2028.86%
Both yoy lines negative, with SONO at -211.54%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
80.84%
Debt repayment growth of 80.84% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-100.00%
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.
-3.70%
Both yoy lines negative, with SONO at -4.85%. Martin Whitman would see an overall reduced environment for buybacks in the niche or cyclical factor driving capital usage.