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.
42.11%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 32.73%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
1933.33%
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.
96.90%
EBIT growth similar to SONO's 100.61%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
96.90%
Operating income growth similar to SONO's 95.22%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
120.77%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 95.18%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
120.00%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 94.83%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
120.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 94.83%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
2.64%
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.
4.64%
Diluted share count expanding well above SONO's 0.42%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-238.46%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-74.29%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-37.17%
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.
-53.20%
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.
-22.32%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-70.53%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO stands at 292.53%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
91.31%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-121.65%
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.
-76.99%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is at 82.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
104.15%
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.
-40.37%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
44.52%
Equity/share CAGR of 44.52% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
29.93%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of SONO's 38.98%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
105.39%
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.
44.44%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 133.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-52.38%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.41%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 5.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.89%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 3.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1.93%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.98%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-1.68%
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.
