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.
-46.15%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 32.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-104.50%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-391.67%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 100.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-391.67%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 95.22%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-221.76%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-218.28%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-230.95%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
3.12%
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.
-6.73%
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.
-108.23%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-127.56%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-58.08%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SONO stands at 17.65%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-76.66%
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.
-51.55%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-104.00%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO stands at 292.53%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-105.07%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-107.48%
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.
-195.93%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is at 82.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-118.87%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is 94.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-434.37%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
67.56%
Equity/share CAGR of 67.56% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-3.07%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 38.98%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
126.54%
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.
-53.73%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 133.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-36.36%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-12.01%
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.
-12.35%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 3.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
3.67%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.99%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.32%
SG&A growth well above SONO's 2.76%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
