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.
2.01%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 32.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.56%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SONO's 31.79%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
54.55%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SONO's 100.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
54.55%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SONO's 95.22%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
86.67%
Net income growth comparable to SONO's 95.18%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
86.36%
EPS growth similar to SONO's 94.83%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
86.36%
Similar diluted EPS growth to SONO's 94.83%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
0.10%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SONO's 0.42%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.10%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SONO's 0.42%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
34.15%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 162.75%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
400.00%
FCF growth above 1.5x SONO's 150.11%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-50.34%
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.
-33.50%
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.
-43.65%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-5.80%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO stands at 292.53%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-40.59%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-73.55%
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.
-102.51%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is at 82.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-109.10%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is 94.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-102.94%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
21.68%
Equity/share CAGR of 21.68% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
135.88%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
-16.36%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-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.
-12.04%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 133.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-2.22%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.46%
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.
0.41%
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%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.42%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
6.79%
SG&A growth well above SONO's 2.76%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
