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
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.
-26.96%
Negative revenue growth while AR stands at 4.54%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-36.13%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-206.50%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-206.50%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
38.07%
Positive net income growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
38.02%
Positive EPS growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
38.57%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.10%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.81%
Slight or no buyback while AR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-66.63%
Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-64.96%
Negative OCF growth while AR is at 100.36%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-220.24%
Negative FCF growth while AR is at 2002.99%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-81.09%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 610.35%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-60.51%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 610.35%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-38.33%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AR stands at 140.60%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-91.99%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 217.80%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-78.32%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 217.80%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-59.71%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 189.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-130.15%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-524.79%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
23.73%
Below 50% of AR's 90.11%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-61.08%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-71.55%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
1.55%
Below 50% of AR's 249.85%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-76.18%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-92.27%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-92.33%
Negative near-term dividend growth while AR invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-36.84%
Firm’s AR is declining while AR shows 3.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-100.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-2.82%
Negative asset growth while AR invests at 0.94%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-10.64%
We have a declining book value while AR shows 1.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1.00%
We have some new debt while AR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.85%
We cut SG&A while AR invests at 38.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.