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.
16.97%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SONO's 32.73%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
17.54%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SONO's 31.79%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
72.09%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SONO's 100.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
72.09%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of SONO's 95.22%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
43.18%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.18%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
40.91%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
42.86%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.07%
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.
1.56%
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.
200.00%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 162.75%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
1066.67%
FCF growth above 1.5x SONO's 150.11%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-47.56%
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.
-12.44%
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.
85.31%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-61.80%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO stands at 292.53%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-26.70%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
1667.12%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 691.94%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
1.65%
Below 50% of SONO's 82.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-69.06%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is 94.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
128.31%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
36.10%
Equity/share CAGR of 36.10% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
68.07%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
8.51%
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.
-23.50%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 133.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
58.93%
We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.29%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 5.33%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.46%
50-75% of SONO's 3.86%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-0.66%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
7.21%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
9.24%
SG&A growth well above SONO's 2.76%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
