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.
-25.13%
Negative revenue growth while AR stands at 0.83%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-45.65%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-134.42%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-134.42%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-200.00%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-200.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-198.75%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-2.86%
Share reduction while AR is at 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.18%
Reduced diluted shares while AR is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.92%
Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
24.67%
Positive OCF growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
5.51%
Positive FCF growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-89.33%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 1302.18%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-61.36%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 228.96%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
5.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 104.02%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-81.09%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 303.38%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-33.13%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 196.89%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
42.08%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 8.64%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-109.83%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while AR is at 76.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-116.13%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
91.64%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 18.02%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-75.19%
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.
-4.53%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 276.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-25.92%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AR is at 34.86%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-96.29%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-89.89%
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.
-66.27%
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.
4.25%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. AR's 16.40%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.12%
Asset growth well under 50% of AR's 1.74%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.30%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.88%
We’re deleveraging while AR stands at 8.44%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
32.50%
SG&A growth well above AR's 7.56%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.