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.
-5.48%
Negative revenue growth while SONO stands at 57.18%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-6.13%
Negative gross profit growth while SONO is at 71.05%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-9.13%
Negative EBIT growth while SONO is at 118.36%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-9.13%
Negative operating income growth while SONO is at 118.36%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-9.26%
Negative net income growth while SONO stands at 105.32%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-8.50%
Negative EPS growth while SONO is at 105.41%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-8.50%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SONO is at 105.20%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.56%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.75%
Reduced diluted shares while SONO is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
5.57%
Dividend growth of 5.57% while SONO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
27.18%
OCF growth under 50% of SONO's 157.07%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
29.06%
FCF growth under 50% of SONO's 133.16%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
259.74%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 33.17%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
90.24%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 31.46%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
14.34%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 7.09%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
341.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SONO's 420.77%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
195.96%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 19.27%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
48.50%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
334.57%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SONO's 119.08% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
154.83%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SONO's 122.80%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
7.07%
Positive short-term CAGR while SONO is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-13.41%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while SONO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-17.47%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SONO is at 38.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
12.65%
Positive short-term equity growth while SONO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
113.28%
Dividend/share CAGR of 113.28% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
28.08%
Dividend/share CAGR of 28.08% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
12.24%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 12.24% while SONO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.91%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SONO's 88.71%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-1.08%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-1.72%
Negative asset growth while SONO invests at 3.83%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-9.59%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-3.14%
We’re deleveraging while SONO stands at 2.54%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.30%
We increase R&D while SONO cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.29%
We cut SG&A while SONO invests at 4.54%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
