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.
-9.10%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 13.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.42%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 7.29%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-12.28%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 34.97%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-12.28%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 34.97%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-7.98%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 3.51%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-7.09%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-7.14%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.74%
Share reduction while SONO is at 2.67%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.87%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 0.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
10.10%
Dividend growth of 10.10% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-12.04%
Negative OCF growth while SONO is at 283.58%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-12.49%
Negative FCF growth while SONO is at 218.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
344.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 24.35%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
151.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 24.35%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
79.54%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 42.86%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
196.12%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 450.29%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
159.71%
Below 50% of SONO's 450.29%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
70.98%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SONO's 396.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
363.96%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 189.82% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
265.17%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SONO's 189.82%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
121.68%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of SONO's 151.93%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
44.55%
Equity/share CAGR of 44.55% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-33.49%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-34.33%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 2108.63%. 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.
54.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 54.75% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
21.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 21.10% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.64%
AR growth well above SONO's 0.92%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-0.79%
Inventory is declining while SONO stands at 5.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.17%
Negative asset growth while SONO invests at 3.42%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.39%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.12%
We have some new debt while SONO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
8.65%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.84%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SONO's 8.81%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
