Logo

SOND

Sonder Holdings Inc.

SOND

Sonder Holdings Inc. • NASDAQ
$0.03 ▼ -21.78% (-0.01)
Market Cap $396593
52w High $4.09
52w Low $0.03
Dividend Yield 0%
P/E 0
Volume 957.85K
Outstanding Shares 13.31M

Income Statement

Period Revenue Operating Expense Net Income Net Profit Margin Earnings Per Share EBITDA
Q2-2025 $147.085M ▲ $64.311M ▼ $-44.523M ▲ -30.27% ▲ $-3.96 ▲ $-25.78M ▼
Q1-2025 $118.856M ▼ $85.648M ▼ $-56.495M ▼ -47.532% ▼ $-4.85 ▼ $5.827M ▼
Q4-2024 $161.078M ▼ $103.289M ▲ $31.403M ▲ 19.496% ▲ $4.294 ▲ $82.476M ▲
Q3-2024 $162.114M ▼ $103.046M ▲ $-179.391M ▼ -110.657% ▼ $-17.82 ▼ $-125.17M ▼
Q2-2024 $164.601M $101.648M $32.747M 19.895% $2.94 $87.995M

Balance Statement

Period Cash & Short-term Total Assets Total Liabilities Total Equity
Q2-2025 $70.958M ▲ $1.005B ▼ $1.49B ▼ $-485.225M ▲
Q1-2025 $23.329M ▲ $1.033B ▼ $1.526B ▼ $-493.312M ▼
Q4-2024 $20.786M ▼ $1.137B ▼ $1.573B ▼ $-435.888M ▲
Q3-2024 $26.957M ▼ $1.218B ▲ $1.755B ▲ $-536.942M ▼
Q2-2024 $69.123M $1.21B $1.598B $-387.359M

Cash Flow Statement

Period Net Income Cash From Operations Cash From Investing Cash From Financing Net Change Free Cash Flow
Q2-2025 $-44.523M ▲ $-19.618M ▼ $6.256M ▲ $17.73M ▲ $4.438M ▲ $-21.052M ▼
Q1-2025 $-56.495M ▼ $-4.353M ▲ $-959K ▼ $-250K ▼ $-5.534M ▼ $-5.572M ▲
Q4-2024 $-26.956M ▲ $-38.771M ▼ $7.824M ▲ $27.564M ▲ $-3.845M ▼ $-39.893M ▼
Q3-2024 $-179.391M ▼ $-17.364M ▲ $114K ▲ $23.37M ▲ $6.776M ▲ $-17.25M ▲
Q2-2024 $32.747M $-32.778M $-1.493M $9.167M $-25.755M $-34.271M

Five-Year Company Overview

Income Statement

Income Statement Revenue grew steadily over the past several years, showing that demand for Sonder’s concept did exist and that the company was able to scale its footprint and bookings. Gross profit also improved from negative to clearly positive territory, meaning the core economics of running each stay became more favorable over time. However, the company never translated that growth into sustainable profitability. Operating losses remained large every year, and net losses stayed deep, even as the business matured. While there was some progress in narrowing certain loss measures, the structure of the business—lease costs, operations, and overhead—kept overall profitability firmly in the red. The very rapid growth and asset intensity outpaced the path to break-even.

Balance Sheet

Balance Sheet The balance sheet shows a company that expanded aggressively and became heavily reliant on debt. Total assets grew significantly as Sonder took on more properties and commitments, but liabilities expanded even faster. Equity remained negative for multiple years, a clear signal that accumulated losses had eroded the company’s capital base. Cash balances trended downward over time despite capital raises, suggesting persistent strain. Debt levels stood well above the company’s cash and, eventually, above its assets, leaving little room for error. This highly leveraged and underwater balance sheet made Sonder very vulnerable to any business disruption, slowing growth, or missed targets—which is consistent with its eventual move into Chapter 7 liquidation.

Cash Flow

Cash Flow Sonder’s cash flow profile never caught up with its growth story. Operating cash flow was consistently negative, indicating that the core business consumed cash rather than generating it, even as revenue scaled meaningfully. Free cash flow stayed negative as well, reflecting both operating losses and the ongoing need to invest in properties, technology, and build‑out. Capital spending itself wasn’t enormous in any given year, but in combination with structural operating cash burn, it created a steady drain. Over multiple years, this repeated pattern meant the company depended on external financing and balance sheet leverage to stay afloat. Once new funding became harder to access and counterparties lost confidence, the business had no cash flow cushion to fall back on.

Competitive Edge

Competitive Edge Strategically, Sonder sat in a crowded and demanding space—somewhere between traditional hotels and short‑term rental platforms. It tried to offer the design and service consistency of a hotel with the flexibility and space of an apartment rental. That positioning was differentiated on paper, but in practice it faced intense competition from large hotel chains, local boutique hotels, and asset‑light platforms like Airbnb and Booking. Its model of directly leasing and operating units gave it control over the guest experience but also pushed more risk onto its own balance sheet. Competitors that were more asset‑light could react faster and with less financial burden when demand shifted. Sonder’s brand was recognized among certain urban and tech‑savvy travelers, yet it never achieved dominant scale or pricing power. The termination of its partnership with Marriott underscored how fragile its strategic alliances were at a critical time.

Innovation and R&D

Innovation and R&D Sonder’s main strength was innovation, not in traditional lab research but in how it reimagined the lodging experience. The company built a tech‑first guest journey—app‑based check‑in, digital keys, on‑demand support, and lean on‑site staffing. This helped reduce some labor intensity and created a smoother, more modern stay versus many legacy hotels. Its “Powered by Sonder” hotel collection and later partnership with Marriott showed creativity in blending technology with unique properties and large‑scale distribution. These moves, however, layered a complex, asset‑heavy operating model on top of innovative software and processes. In the end, the business model risk outweighed the tech advantages. Sonder’s story is less about a failure of product innovation and more about the financial and execution risks of scaling a disruptive, capital‑intensive model too quickly.

Summary

Sonder evolved from a promising, design‑driven hospitality startup into a cautionary example of how innovation alone cannot overcome weak financial foundations. The company successfully grew revenue and improved unit‑level economics, and it clearly advanced the industry conversation around app‑based, self‑service lodging. At the same time, it carried persistent operating losses, deep negative equity, high leverage, and sustained cash burn. Its direct‑lease model and rapid expansion amplified financial risk in a cyclical, competitive industry. When strategic lifelines—such as the Marriott agreement—fell through, the fragile capital structure left no room to recover. Overall, Sonder’s collapse highlights the tension between disruptive hospitality concepts and the hard realities of capital intensity, balance sheet health, and cash discipline. The market demand for tech‑enabled, flexible stays remains, but future players are likely to be far more cautious about leverage, lease commitments, and the pace of growth than Sonder was.

NEWS

November 10, 2025 · 12:00 PM UTC

Sonder Holdings Inc. To Complete Immediate Wind-Down of Operations

Read more

November 9, 2025 · 10:03 AM UTC

Marriott International Provides Financial Outlook Update Following Termination of Agreement with Sonder

Read more

November 9, 2025 · 10:00 AM UTC

Marriott International Announces Termination of Agreement with Sonder

Read more

October 14, 2025 · 4:18 PM UTC

Sonder Holdings Inc. Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results

Read more