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.
-18.00%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 32.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-17.90%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 31.79%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-24.36%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 100.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-24.36%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 95.22%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-24.21%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 95.18%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-23.81%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-23.81%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 94.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.81%
Share reduction while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.71%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
9.72%
Dividend growth of 9.72% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-24.25%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-35.08%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1522.95%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 17.65%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
367.16%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 25.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
41.26%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
4143.99%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 292.53%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
370.05%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-0.46%
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.
10991.26%
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.
555.95%
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.
14.31%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
2094.65%
Equity/share CAGR of 2094.65% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
386.07%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
88.05%
Positive short-term equity growth while SONO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.22%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 133.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-12.85%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
8.03%
Asset growth above 1.5x SONO's 5.33%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.49%
50-75% of SONO's 3.86%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
83.00%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
12.73%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.80%
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.
