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.
43.38%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 91.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
44.85%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SONO's 83.16%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
63.64%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 371.70%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
63.64%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 371.70%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
62.47%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 339.10%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
65.79%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 332.14%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
64.47%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 314.29%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.69%
Share reduction while SONO is at 3.28%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.45%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 12.22%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
3.47%
Dividend growth of 3.47% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
53.27%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 1125.15%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
65.81%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 17957.19%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
738.72%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
62.89%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
40.64%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
656.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 0.59%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
19.76%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 0.59%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
34.48%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 0.59%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
842.99%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 86.36% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
63.27%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of SONO's 86.36%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
49.16%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of SONO's 86.36%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
258.58%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of SONO's 289.56%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
-3.92%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 289.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-18.84%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 289.56%. 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.
67.21%
Dividend/share CAGR of 67.21% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.70%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.70% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-12.79%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 32.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-0.22%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.62%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 14.75%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.64%
Under 50% of SONO's 26.58%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
0.23%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SONO's 207.52%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
8.30%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SONO's 5.81%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
13.52%
SG&A growth well above SONO's 8.22%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
