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.
-1.33%
Negative revenue growth while CVE stands at 0.08%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-5.14%
Negative gross profit growth while CVE is at 11.82%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-21.68%
Negative EBIT growth while CVE is at 36.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-21.68%
Negative operating income growth while CVE is at 36.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-31.01%
Negative net income growth while CVE stands at 36.16%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-32.16%
Negative EPS growth while CVE is at 36.36%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-31.98%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CVE is at 37.50%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
2.09%
Slight or no buybacks while CVE is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.25%
Slight or no buyback while CVE is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
32.49%
Dividend growth 1.25-1.5x CVE's 26.02%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if management’s capital return strategy is more aggressive yet sustainable.
-22.19%
Negative OCF growth while CVE is at 795.80%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-58.30%
Negative FCF growth while CVE is at 171.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-25.11%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CVE stands at 11.25%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
93.79%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 37.86%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
261.15%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to CVE's 278.58%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-11.46%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
32.40%
Below 50% of CVE's 141.08%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
639.87%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 254.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-72.83%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CVE is at 92.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
268.40%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x CVE's 233.78%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
107.99%
Below 50% of CVE's 337.97%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
3.60%
Below 50% of CVE's 9.37%. 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 CVE is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
65.24%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 1.76%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-54.90%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
346.01%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 185.37%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
243.78%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 243.78% while CVE 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 CVE is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
15.60%
Positive BV/share change while CVE is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
51.54%
We have some new debt while CVE reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
27.06%
SG&A growth well above CVE's 5.70%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.