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.
-31.19%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-31.88%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-42.54%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-42.54%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-42.09%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-40.95%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-41.90%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.30%
Share reduction while SONO is at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.52%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-2.23%
Dividend reduction while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-58.21%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-62.32%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
848.55%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
66.51%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
35.38%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1670.28%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 14.89%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
7.95%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SONO's 14.89%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
13.44%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to SONO's 14.89%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
1180.49%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
48.15%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
29.70%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
481.16%
Equity/share CAGR of 481.16% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
15.40%
Equity/share CAGR of 15.40% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-4.27%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
69.50%
Dividend/share CAGR of 69.50% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
39.97%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 39.97% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-28.94%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-2.09%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-8.49%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-9.02%
We have a declining book value while SONO shows 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.83%
We’re deleveraging while SONO stands at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.18%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SONO's 8.05%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-6.79%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
