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.
-7.25%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 23.76%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.30%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 29.82%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.53%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 34.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.53%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 34.39%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-13.12%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 38.62%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-11.29%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 40.91%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-9.84%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 40.91%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-2.21%
Share reduction while SONO is at 3.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.11%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 3.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
7.79%
Dividend growth of 7.79% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.31%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 270.09%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
9.60%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 234.28%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
783.41%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 1.30%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
89.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 1.30%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
51.28%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 1.30%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
601.61%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 368.95%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
49.26%
Below 50% of SONO's 368.95%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
30.31%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 368.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1018.60%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 16.29% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
70.53%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 16.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
53.43%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 16.29%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
409.98%
Equity/share CAGR of 409.98% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
4.92%
Equity/share CAGR of 4.92% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-9.23%
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.
66.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 66.51% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.60%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.60% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
0.75%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 42.42%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-31.31%
Inventory is declining while SONO stands at 16.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-5.78%
Negative asset growth while SONO invests at 16.16%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.82%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-3.74%
We’re deleveraging while SONO stands at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.83%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SONO's 10.67%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-0.72%
We cut SG&A while SONO invests at 20.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
