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.
33.61%
Revenue growth under 50% of SONO's 100.84%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
35.69%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SONO's 120.75%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
49.70%
EBIT growth below 50% of SONO's 381.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
49.70%
Operating income growth under 50% of SONO's 381.00%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
47.74%
Net income growth under 50% of SONO's 359.12%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
48.98%
EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 360.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
49.32%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SONO's 356.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.57%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.61%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
2.37%
Dividend growth of 2.37% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
84.72%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 1140.82%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
92.97%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 2145.49%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
235.86%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
73.23%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
17.16%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
184.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 102.95%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
82.57%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SONO's 139.36%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
12.38%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SONO's 18.57%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
319.72%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 85.56% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
107.48%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 5.01%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
28.79%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-7.57%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while SONO stands at 448.89%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-23.23%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 69.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
22.18%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 7.60%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
123.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 123.46% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
30.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 30.94% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
15.60%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.60% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.85%
Firm’s AR is declining while SONO shows 19.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.84%
We show growth while SONO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.26%
Asset growth well under 50% of SONO's 10.75%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
19.92%
1.25-1.5x SONO's 16.58%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-12.82%
We’re deleveraging while SONO stands at 13.47%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
5.32%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SONO's 20.94%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
10.32%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SONO's 35.87%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
