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.
-1.33%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-5.14%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.68%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-31.01%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-32.16%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-31.98%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
2.09%
Share count expansion well above AR's 1.14%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.25%
Slight or no buyback while AR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
32.49%
Dividend growth of 32.49% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-22.19%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-58.30%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-25.11%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 304.04%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
93.79%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 22.82%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
261.15%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 35.62%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-11.46%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 63.71%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
32.40%
Positive OCF/share growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
639.87%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 19.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-72.83%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
268.40%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 35.66%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
107.99%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AR's 84.00%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
3.60%
Below 50% of AR's 236.68%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
8.52%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
65.24%
Positive short-term equity growth while AR is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-54.90%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
346.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 346.01% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
243.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 243.78% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-1.56%
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.
29.07%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
15.60%
Positive BV/share change while AR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
51.54%
Debt growth far above AR's 0.87%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
27.06%
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.