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.
-134.19%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 17.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
1.75%
Some D&A expansion while VET is negative at -28.25%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-82.16%
Negative yoy deferred tax while VET stands at 13.61%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
81.45%
Less working capital growth vs. VET's 888.65%, indicating potentially more efficient day-to-day cash usage. David Dodd would confirm no negative impact on revenue.
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.
83.34%
Growth of 83.34% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a difference in minor WC usage that might affect short-term cash flow if large.
-1545.00%
Negative yoy while VET is 115.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
215.67%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x VET's 33.70%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-16.70%
Negative yoy CapEx while VET is 18.95%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
42.47%
Acquisition growth of 42.47% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
23.58%
Purchases growth of 23.58% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
16.70%
We have some liquidation growth while VET is negative at -100.00%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-11.67%
Both yoy lines negative, with VET at -161.53%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-3.17%
We reduce yoy invests while VET stands at 9.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
100.00%
Debt repayment growth of 100.00% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
-75.00%
Negative yoy issuance while VET is 28.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
44.06%
Buyback growth of 44.06% 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.