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.
-12.88%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 11.61%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-12.81%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 17.39%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-20.65%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 35.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-20.65%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 35.83%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-16.66%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 17.19%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-14.49%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 25.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-14.71%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 12.90%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-2.84%
Share reduction while SONO is at 7.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
17.86%
Dividend growth of 17.86% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-4.24%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 117.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
2.62%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 109.81%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
804.23%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
98.61%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
26.02%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1289.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 170.53%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
143.77%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SONO's 170.53%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
13.45%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 170.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1261.54%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
119.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.62%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
642.29%
Equity/share CAGR of 642.29% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
22.74%
Equity/share CAGR of 22.74% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
7.35%
Equity/share CAGR of 7.35% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
71.16%
Dividend/share CAGR of 71.16% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.43% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
17.67%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 45.99%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-22.53%
Inventory is declining while SONO stands at 29.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.98%
Negative asset growth while SONO invests at 14.10%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.75%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.94%
We’re deleveraging while SONO stands at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
9.56%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SONO's 0.59%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-1.01%
We cut SG&A while SONO invests at 2.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
