Apple Inc. (AAPL)

Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.

Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.

Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.

Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.

Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.

Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.

Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.

Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.

Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.

Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.

Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.

Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.

Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.

Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.

Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.

Positive 10Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.

Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.

Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.

Equity/share CAGR of 761.13% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.

Equity/share CAGR of 22.58% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.

Equity/share CAGR of 13.40% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.

Dividend/share CAGR of 67.63% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.

3Y dividend/share CAGR of 34.09% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.

We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.

Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.

Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.

We’re deleveraging while SONO stands at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.

Our R&D shrinks while SONO invests at 5.09%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.

Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.