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.
8.73%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 32.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-3.08%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
1.75%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 100.61%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
1.75%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.22%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
5.26%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.18%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
5.26%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
5.26%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.61%
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.
2.37%
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.
-95.24%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-783.33%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-39.46%
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.
-33.64%
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.
-24.61%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-99.57%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO stands at 292.53%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-98.70%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-99.43%
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.
-79.43%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is at 82.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
102.81%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to SONO's 94.61%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
-77.14%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
33.65%
Equity/share CAGR of 33.65% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
129.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
42.40%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
29.32%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 133.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
13.04%
We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.32%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 5.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.59%
Under 50% of SONO's 3.86%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.27%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.77%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-6.57%
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.
