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.
68.88%
Positive revenue growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
144.69%
Positive gross profit growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
2810.71%
EBIT growth above 1.5x AR's 419.11%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
2810.71%
Operating income growth above 1.5x AR's 419.11%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
7116.67%
Net income growth above 1.5x AR's 29.74%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
7112.99%
EPS growth above 1.5x AR's 26.09%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
7236.56%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x AR's 26.09%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.04%
Slight or no buybacks while AR is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-1.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-4.04%
Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-22.47%
Negative OCF growth while AR is at 35.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-243.59%
Negative FCF growth while AR is at 47.70%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-57.55%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 1326.69%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
23.45%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 59.45%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
52.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 12.98%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
141.75%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 82.74%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-31.50%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
299.96%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-83.91%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
114.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-26.83%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-67.37%
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.
-37.53%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 15.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
16.99%
Positive short-term equity growth while AR is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-90.83%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-63.16%
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.
19.85%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.85% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.80%
Our AR growth while AR is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.08%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.59%
Positive BV/share change while AR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.20%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2038.10%
We expand SG&A while AR cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.