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.
-19.61%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-14.10%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-17.98%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-17.98%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-17.82%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-17.06%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-16.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.07%
Share reduction while SONO is at 5.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.08%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 9.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.56%
Dividend reduction while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-38.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-38.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
460.35%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
133.29%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
75.80%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 34.12%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
494.97%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
172.16%
Positive OCF/share growth while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
90.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 54.24%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
508.98%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 173.09% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
195.85%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SONO's 173.09%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
105.10%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of SONO's 139.74%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
73.62%
Equity/share CAGR of 73.62% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-30.18%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-34.59%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 1106.14%. 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.
56.39%
Dividend/share CAGR of 56.39% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.64% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-43.64%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
4.95%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. SONO's 58.27%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.77%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
5.59%
50-75% of SONO's 7.69%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
8.57%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SONO's 7.69%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-5.63%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
