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.
2.47%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 32.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-14.00%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
22.03%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 100.61%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
22.03%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.22%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-15.00%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-15.45%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-15.15%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.59%
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.
-0.08%
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.
-32.48%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-43.05%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
2.26%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 17.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-52.48%
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.
-9.56%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
19.75%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 292.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
117.91%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-37.71%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO stands at 691.94%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
27.80%
Below 50% of SONO's 82.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
116.19%
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.
160.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
110.20%
Equity/share CAGR of 110.20% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
8.02%
Below 50% of SONO's 38.98%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
167.15%
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.
-1.45%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 133.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
560.00%
We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.86%
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.
-2.23%
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.
4.12%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.44%
SG&A growth well above SONO's 2.76%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
