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.
-7.94%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-33.60%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-162.05%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-162.05%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-166.34%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-166.39%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-168.10%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.23%
Share reduction while AR is at 3.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.84%
Reduced diluted shares while AR is at 3.75%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
4.41%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while AR cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-9.31%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-23.06%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-51.65%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 2047.13%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
203.26%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to AR's 203.00%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
25.20%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 53.13%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-55.80%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 330.89%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
489.53%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 18.16%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
14.85%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 6.82%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-166.10%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while AR is at 7.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
77.75%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 19.80%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
1.25%
Positive short-term CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-86.86%
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.
-47.70%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-55.96%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-90.35%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
48.27%
Dividend/share CAGR of 48.27% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.89%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.89% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.12%
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.
-5.28%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-4.62%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-14.82%
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.
8.45%
SG&A growth well above AR's 12.14%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.