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.
-4.84%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 32.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-1.12%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
1.35%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 100.61%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
1.35%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.22%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-26.98%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-29.03%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-26.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.80%
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.
1.59%
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.
-72.15%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-85.14%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-40.15%
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.
-6.85%
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.
26.37%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
333.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SONO's 292.53%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
-83.07%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
231.33%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 691.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
76.19%
Similar net income/share CAGR to SONO's 82.31%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
-74.56%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SONO is 94.61%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
1.34%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
38.62%
Equity/share CAGR of 38.62% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
54.11%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SONO's 38.98%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
13.78%
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.
-0.17%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 133.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-29.21%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.39%
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.
2.87%
50-75% of SONO's 3.86%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
3.36%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
0.58%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SONO's 2.76%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
