Shell Companies
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
APXT vs BFLY vs GS vs SONO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Devices
Financial - Capital Markets
Consumer Electronics
APXT vs BFLY vs GS vs SONO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Shell Companies | Medical - Devices | Financial - Capital Markets | Consumer Electronics |
| Market Cap | $1.94B | $1.11B | $287.62B | $1.80B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $330M | $103M | $126.85B | $1.46B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-57M | $-76M | $16.67B | $-41M |
| Gross Margin | 75.0% | 49.2% | 41.1% | 44.8% |
| Operating Margin | 2.2% | -79.5% | 14.5% | 2.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 15.8x | 47.8x |
| Total Debt | $10M | $20M | $616.93B | $60M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $291M | $150M | $182.09B | $175M |
APXT vs BFLY vs GS vs SONO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apex Technology Acq… (APXT) | 100 | 96.9 | -3.1% |
| Butterfly Network, … (BFLY) | 100 | 41.7 | -58.3% |
| The Goldman Sachs G… (GS) | 100 | 473.1 | +373.1% |
| Sonos, Inc. (SONO) | 100 | 94.0 | -6.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: APXT vs BFLY vs GS vs SONO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
APXT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- beta 0.02
- Lower volatility, beta 0.02, Low D/E 3.6%, current ratio 1.77x
- Beta 0.02, current ratio 1.77x
- Beta 0.02 vs BFLY's 3.28, lower leverage
BFLY is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 19.0%, EPS growth 8.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 10.0%
- 19.0% revenue growth vs APXT's -198.1%
- +94.5% vs APXT's +0.8%
GS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding.
- 5.3% 10Y total return vs APXT's 2.2%
- Better valuation composite
- 11.3% margin vs BFLY's -73.6%
- 1.5% yield; 12-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend
SONO lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.0% revenue growth vs APXT's -198.1% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 11.3% margin vs BFLY's -73.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.02 vs BFLY's 3.28, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield; 12-year raise streak; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +94.5% vs APXT's +0.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 0.9% ROA vs BFLY's -25.6%, ROIC 1.9% vs -76.8% |
APXT vs BFLY vs GS vs SONO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
APXT vs BFLY vs GS vs SONO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
APXT leads in 2 of 6 categories
GS leads 2 • BFLY leads 0 • SONO leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
APXT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GS is the larger business by revenue, generating $126.9B annually — 1232.6x BFLY's $103M. GS is the more profitable business, keeping 11.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BFLY's -73.6%. On growth, BFLY holds the edge at +25.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $330M | $103M | $126.9B | $1.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $9M | -$76M | $23.4B | $61M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$57M | -$76M | $16.7B | -$41M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $139M | -$19M | $15.8B | $118M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +75.0% | +49.2% | +41.1% | +44.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +2.2% | -79.5% | +14.5% | +2.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -8.8% | -73.6% | +11.3% | -2.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +26.0% | -18.3% | -12.1% | +8.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +25.0% | — | +8.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +5.0% | +16.0% | +45.8% | -29.3% |
Valuation Metrics
GS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, GS's 34.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than APXT's 231.6x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.9B | $1.1B | $287.6B | $1.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.7B | $979M | $722.5B | $1.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -62.50x | -13.68x | 22.84x | -29.20x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 15.79x | 47.77x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.63x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 231.63x | — | 34.75x | 142.14x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 5.87x | 11.37x | 2.27x | 1.25x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 6.74x | 5.35x | 2.53x | 5.06x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 22.61x | — | — | 16.64x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — APXT and GS each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GS delivers a 12.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $-37 for BFLY. APXT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.04x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GS's 5.06x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), APXT scores 6/9 vs BFLY's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -12.2% | -36.8% | +12.6% | -10.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.7% | -25.6% | +0.9% | -4.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +1.7% | -76.8% | +1.9% | -13.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.2% | -39.3% | +3.6% | -9.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.04x | 0.10x | 5.06x | 0.17x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$281M | -$130M | $434.8B | -$115M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $291M | $150M | $182.1B | $175M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $10M | $20M | $616.9B | $60M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.65x | -71.59x | 0.31x | 2587.88x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GS five years ago would be worth $26,440 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,490 for BFLY. Over the past 12 months, BFLY leads with a +94.5% total return vs APXT's +0.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GS at 43.5% vs SONO's -11.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.1% | +13.1% | +1.8% | -14.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +0.8% | +94.5% | +70.6% | +66.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +0.8% | +100.9% | +195.2% | -31.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -1.5% | -65.1% | +164.4% | -60.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +2.2% | -57.2% | +534.3% | -25.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +0.3% | +26.2% | +43.5% | -11.9% |
Risk & Volatility
APXT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
APXT is the less volatile stock with a 0.02 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BFLY's 3.28 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. APXT currently trades 100.0% from its 52-week high vs BFLY's 74.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.02x | 3.23x | 1.47x | 1.72x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.01 | $5.72 | $984.70 | $19.82 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.87 | $1.32 | $547.74 | $8.73 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +100.0% | +74.1% | +94.0% | +75.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 54.2 | 46.2 | 59.5 | 56.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 52K | 6.4M | 2.0M | 1.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BFLY as "Buy", GS as "Hold", SONO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 31.0% upside for SONO (target: $20) vs 5.9% for GS (target: $981). GS is the only dividend payer here at 1.46% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $5.42 | $980.78 | $19.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 7 | 55 | 9 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +1.5% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 12 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $13.48 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.7% | 0.0% | +3.5% | +4.5% |
APXT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). GS leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). 1 tied.
APXT vs BFLY vs GS vs SONO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Butterfly Network, Inc.
(BFLY) is the stronger pick with 19. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 9% for Sonos, Inc. (SONO). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) offers the better valuation at 22. 8x trailing P/E (15. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY) a "Buy" — based on 7 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO?
On forward P/E, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 15. 8x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO?
Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) delivered a total return of +164. 4%, compared to -65. 1% for Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GS returned +541. 0% versus BFLY's -58. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Apex Technology Acquisition Corporation (APXT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
02β versus Butterfly Network, Inc. 's 3. 23β — meaning BFLY is approximately 19720% more volatile than APXT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Apex Technology Acquisition Corporation (APXT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Butterfly Network, Inc.
(BFLY) is pulling ahead at 19. 0% versus -4. 9% for Sonos, Inc. (SONO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 77. 3% year-over-year, compared to -67. 7% for Apex Technology Acquisition Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, BFLY leads at 10. 0% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO?
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 3% net margin versus -79. 0% for Butterfly Network, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GS leads at 14. 5% versus -88. 5% for BFLY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — APXT leads at 75. 0%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) trades at 15. 8x forward P/E versus 47. 8x for Sonos, Inc. — 32. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SONO: 31. 0% to $19. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO?
In this comparison, GS (1.
5% yield) pays a dividend. APXT, BFLY, SONO do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is APXT or BFLY or GS or SONO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Apex Technology Acquisition Corporation (APXT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
02)). Butterfly Network, Inc. (BFLY) carries a higher beta of 3. 23 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (APXT: +2. 2%, BFLY: -58. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between APXT and BFLY and GS and SONO?
These companies operate in different sectors (APXT (Financial Services) and BFLY (Healthcare) and GS (Financial Services) and SONO (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: APXT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BFLY is a small-cap high-growth stock; GS is a large-cap high-growth stock; SONO is a small-cap quality compounder stock. GS pays a dividend while APXT, BFLY, SONO do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.