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.
4.75%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 32.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.39%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SONO's 31.79%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
53.33%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SONO's 100.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
53.33%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SONO's 95.22%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
35.71%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.18%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
28.57%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
28.57%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.08%
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.
0.42%
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.
-91.84%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-165.52%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-46.80%
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.
-18.71%
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.
-23.73%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
101.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 292.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-97.14%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-96.92%
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.
106.47%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SONO's 82.31%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
-86.12%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is 94.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-91.44%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
33.22%
Equity/share CAGR of 33.22% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
108.39%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
-9.43%
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.
15.45%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 133.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-7.32%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.26%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 5.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.34%
Under 50% of SONO's 3.86%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.97%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
0.84%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.33%
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.
