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.
-41.09%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-74.47%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-112.04%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-112.04%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-117.41%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-117.74%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-117.74%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.81%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.42%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
45.62%
Dividend growth of 45.62% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-7.43%
Negative OCF growth while AR is at 19.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-26.65%
Negative FCF growth while AR is at 26.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-37.45%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 3063.95%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
14.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 150.55%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
51.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of AR's 66.50%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
-36.48%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 368.01%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
388.56%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 44.57%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
22.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 3.56%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-1248.98%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-142.27%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
6.64%
Positive short-term CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-68.37%
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.
-45.73%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-57.09%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-79.76%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
162.09%
Dividend/share CAGR of 162.09% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
76.26%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 76.26% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
46.22%
AR growth well above AR's 5.40%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.01%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-6.93%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.05%
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.
10.73%
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.