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.
18.09%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SONO's 30.97%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
17.94%
Gross profit growth at 75-90% of SONO's 21.77%. Bill Ackman would demand operational improvements to match competitor gains.
27.80%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 100.93%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
27.80%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 100.93%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
22.62%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 93.63%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
25.42%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 93.52%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
25.86%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 93.52%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.65%
Share reduction while SONO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.60%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.75%
Dividend reduction while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
34.75%
Similar OCF growth to SONO's 31.89%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
46.89%
Positive FCF growth while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
930.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 18.79%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
121.26%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 18.79%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
43.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 18.79%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
487.86%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
159.73%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
70.39%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1508.05%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 89.25% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
147.85%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 89.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
49.33%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of SONO's 89.25%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
521.47%
Below 50% of SONO's 718947.49%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
14.31%
Below 50% of SONO's 718947.49%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
5.58%
Below 50% of SONO's 718947.49%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
68.04%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.04% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.06%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.06% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
85.82%
AR growth well above SONO's 37.89%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-33.36%
Inventory is declining while SONO stands at 70.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.73%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 46.38%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-5.22%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 896.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.10%
We’re deleveraging while SONO stands at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.32%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SONO's 6.93%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
2.63%
We expand SG&A while SONO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
