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.
-24.18%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 32.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-17.07%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-7.73%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 100.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-7.73%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 95.22%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-27.43%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-28.40%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-27.71%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
1.22%
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.
0.50%
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.
-144.17%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-258.21%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
17.35%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to SONO's 17.65%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
150.73%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 25.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
153.38%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
79.69%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 292.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-133.84%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-209.36%
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.
132.59%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 82.31% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
684.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 94.61%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
2410.90%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
148.39%
Equity/share CAGR of 148.39% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
91.18%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
79.84%
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.
49.06%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 133.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-16.39%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.90%
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.
2.36%
50-75% of SONO's 3.86%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-3.30%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-6.33%
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.
