229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
-1.39%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 32.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.56%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-4.69%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 100.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.69%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 95.22%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-5.43%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.85%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.85%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.61%
Share reduction while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.72%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
5.62%
Dividend growth of 5.62% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
16.35%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 162.75%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
16.88%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 150.11%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
191.54%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 17.65%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
82.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 25.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
22.94%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
185.94%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SONO's 292.53%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
98.24%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
32.03%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 691.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
237.55%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 82.31% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
141.05%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SONO's 94.61%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
30.72%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-19.44%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
5.42%
Below 50% of SONO's 38.98%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
22.87%
Positive short-term equity growth while SONO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
98.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 98.73% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
24.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 24.90% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
12.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 12.27% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.95%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 133.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.49%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.08%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 5.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.84%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 3.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
3.58%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.70%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-1.16%
We cut SG&A while SONO invests at 2.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
