PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Ovintiv Inc. (OVV)
40.910.33 (-0.80%)
40.40 - 41.05
29.80 - 47.18
2.12M / 3.66M (Avg.)
18.02 | 2.27
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-109.77%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 160.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
94.22%
Some D&A expansion while VET is negative at -4.80%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-154.57%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
26204.46%
Working capital change of 26204.46% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
410.20%
Some yoy increase while VET is negative at -102.39%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
50.48%
Some CFO growth while VET is negative at -44.95%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-63.46%
Negative yoy CapEx while VET is 67.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
100.00%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-100.00%
Negative yoy purchasing while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
483.85%
Liquidation growth of 483.85% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
175.26%
We have some outflow growth while VET is negative at -125.08%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
-303.68%
Both yoy lines negative, with VET at -138.81%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
95.25%
Debt repayment growth of 95.25% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
3.88%
We slightly raise equity while VET is negative at -36.21%. John Neff sees competitor possibly preserving share count or buying back shares.
1.88%
Buyback growth of 1.88% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.