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.
3.82%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 32.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.41%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SONO's 31.79%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
3.83%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 100.61%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
3.83%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.22%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
4.19%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.18%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
4.26%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
6.52%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.45%
Share reduction while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.57%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.49%
Dividend reduction while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-10.09%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 162.75%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-23.89%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 150.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1325.86%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 17.65%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
187.01%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 25.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
66.56%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1724.67%
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.
168.81%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
71.56%
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.
2534.31%
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.
192.74%
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.
57.35%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1536.22%
Equity/share CAGR of 1536.22% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
183.13%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
17.45%
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.
62.48%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 133.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
15.03%
We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.29%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x SONO's 5.33%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
-3.63%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 3.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
18.21%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
9.14%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.96%
SG&A growth well above SONO's 2.76%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
