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.
10.61%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 32.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
10.60%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SONO's 31.79%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
22.19%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 100.61%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
22.19%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.22%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
15.62%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 95.18%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
16.67%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
16.67%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 94.83%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.40%
Share reduction while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.45%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.60%
Dividend reduction while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
51.65%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 162.75%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
56.40%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 150.11%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
978.85%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 17.65%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
100.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 25.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
47.45%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1602.48%
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.
87.21%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
91.94%
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.
1752.37%
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.
64.78%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of SONO's 94.61%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
41.51%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1330.73%
Equity/share CAGR of 1330.73% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
102.67%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 38.98%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
22.42%
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.
31.69%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 31.69% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
150.12%
AR growth well above SONO's 133.00%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
16.44%
We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.26%
Similar asset growth to SONO's 5.33%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
2.79%
50-75% of SONO's 3.86%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
2.47%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.39%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.19%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SONO's 2.76%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
