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.
41.35%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 3685.29%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
23.28%
Some D&A expansion while SONO is negative at -7.88%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-89.79%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SONO stands at 545.71%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
15.91%
SBC growth while SONO is negative at -2.34%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
117.69%
Less working capital growth vs. SONO's 282.97%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
156.51%
AR growth while SONO is negative at -136.61%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-155.41%
Negative yoy inventory while SONO is 201.99%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-141.85%
Both negative yoy AP, with SONO at -113.72%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
-727.12%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SONO at -1007.18%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-58.82%
Negative yoy while SONO is 6.92%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
36.71%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of SONO's 522.89%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
-10.33%
Negative yoy CapEx while SONO is 45.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
42.41%
Acquisition growth of 42.41% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
50.97%
Purchases growth of 50.97% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
6.73%
Liquidation growth of 6.73% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
74.77%
Growth of 74.77% while SONO is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
294.74%
Investing outflow well above SONO's 45.30%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
100.00%
Debt repayment similar to SONO's 100.00%. Walter Schloss sees parallel liability management or similar free cash flow availability.
-100.00%
Both yoy lines negative, with SONO at -100.00%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment or preference for internal financing over new equity in the niche.
53.96%
Buyback growth of 53.96% 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.