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.
29.96%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 112.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
32.12%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SONO's 129.70%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
44.68%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 243.69%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
44.68%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 243.69%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
44.77%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 217.36%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
46.51%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 218.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
45.74%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 214.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.86%
Share reduction while SONO is at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.01%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 3.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
2.64%
Dividend growth of 2.64% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
40.94%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 275.41%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
45.01%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 233.88%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
255.51%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 0.91%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
70.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 3.35%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
41.78%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 2.51%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
140.12%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 32.18%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
54.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SONO's 93.27%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
23.83%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SONO's 31.41%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
279.44%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 69.61% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
92.39%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 18.57%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
49.91%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-26.31%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while SONO stands at 475.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-47.93%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 209.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-29.59%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 47.74%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
150.02%
Dividend/share CAGR of 150.02% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
45.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.22% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.31% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-11.08%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 8.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
37.89%
We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.70%
Negative asset growth while SONO invests at 1.56%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
12.92%
Similar to SONO's 12.90%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-7.46%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
14.02%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SONO's 14.37%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.59%
SG&A growth well above SONO's 4.19%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.
