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 / 3.68M (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.
-8.95%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.89%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-41.45%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-41.45%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-55.65%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-54.10%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-54.10%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-4.20%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-4.20%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.21%
Dividend growth of 0.21% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-16.56%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
21.79%
Positive FCF growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-72.63%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 972.48%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-54.13%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 66.37%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
23.99%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 73.50%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-84.08%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 160.71%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-39.15%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
163.69%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
238.41%
Positive 10Y CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-97.03%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-69.51%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-77.43%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 275.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-41.49%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 69.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
3.28%
Below 50% of AR's 12.97%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-95.46%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-73.64%
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.
19.77%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.77% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.75%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.80%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
3.40%
Positive BV/share change while AR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.05%
We’re deleveraging while AR stands at 0.00%. 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.
-2.84%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.