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.
-6.17%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 32.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-1.09%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
68.57%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SONO's 100.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
68.57%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SONO's 95.22%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
-14.16%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-14.06%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-13.16%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.21%
Share count expansion well above SONO's 0.42%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-0.60%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
283.61%
OCF growth above 1.5x SONO's 162.75%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
555.88%
FCF growth above 1.5x SONO's 150.11%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
2.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 17.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-46.27%
Negative 5Y CAGR while SONO stands at 25.72%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-18.22%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-40.46%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO stands at 292.53%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
782.27%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
188.42%
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.
28.19%
Below 50% of SONO's 82.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
47.20%
Below 50% of SONO's 94.61%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
399.37%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
112.81%
Equity/share CAGR of 112.81% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
11.94%
Below 50% of SONO's 38.98%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
171.78%
Positive short-term equity growth while SONO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.87%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 133.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-50.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.07%
Negative asset growth while SONO invests at 5.33%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.14%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 3.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.43%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-3.14%
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.
