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.
-25.87%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
1.98%
Less D&A growth vs. SONO's 4.69%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
39.93%
Deferred tax of 39.93% 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.
0.57%
SBC growth while SONO is negative at -3.73%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
28.66%
Less working capital growth vs. SONO's 75.63%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
-86.76%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SONO at -216.57%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
164.71%
Inventory growth well above SONO's 311.49%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
97.90%
AP growth of 97.90% 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.
-651.21%
Negative yoy usage while SONO is 106.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-43.94%
Negative yoy while SONO is 1546.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-8.34%
Negative yoy CFO while SONO is 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-11.77%
Negative yoy CapEx while SONO is 14.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
88.89%
Acquisition growth of 88.89% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
29.50%
Some yoy expansion while SONO is negative at -14.44%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-6.49%
We reduce yoy sales while SONO is 17.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-420.83%
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.
67.28%
Investing outflow well above SONO's 10.51%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Both yoy lines negative, with SONO at -150.00%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment or preference for internal financing over new equity in the niche.
-52.48%
We cut yoy buybacks while SONO is 88.91%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.