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.
-0.27%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 32.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
195.72%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SONO's 31.79%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
90.19%
EBIT growth 75-90% of SONO's 100.61%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
90.19%
Operating income growth similar to SONO's 95.22%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
95.68%
Net income growth comparable to SONO's 95.18%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
95.69%
EPS growth similar to SONO's 94.83%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
95.69%
Similar diluted EPS growth to SONO's 94.83%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
0.06%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SONO's 0.42%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.06%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SONO's 0.42%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
179.28%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 162.75%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
173.32%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 150.11%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
400.15%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 17.65%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
39.03%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 25.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
9.40%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
306.58%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
196.60%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
41.22%
Below 50% of SONO's 94.61%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
84.11%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
18.24%
Below 50% of SONO's 38.98%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-6.54%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-100.00%
Negative near-term dividend growth while SONO invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-5.42%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 133.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-27.63%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.12%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 5.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.81%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 3.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
73.44%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.33%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-9.90%
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.
