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.
-4.24%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
31.24%
Positive gross profit growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-45.79%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-45.79%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-101.74%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-101.90%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-101.81%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-7.67%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-5.89%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
3.25%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MTDR's 0.08%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
50.48%
Positive OCF growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
16.10%
Positive FCF growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
311.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 690.14%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
311.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 1272.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
311.46%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1222.66%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MTDR's 1566.28%. Bill Ackman would demand strategic changes to close the gap in long-term cash generation.
1222.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 362.73%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
1222.66%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-140.96%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MTDR is at 163.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-140.96%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MTDR is 139.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-140.96%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
298.15%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MTDR's 274.37%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
298.15%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MTDR's 204.54%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
298.15%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 101.40%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
107.74%
Dividend/share CAGR of 107.74% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
107.74%
Dividend/share CAGR of 107.74% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
107.74%
Below 50% of MTDR's 529.33%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-18.05%
Firm’s AR is declining while MTDR shows 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-59.28%
Inventory is declining while MTDR stands at 23.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.50%
Negative asset growth while MTDR invests at 1.79%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
2.73%
1.25-1.5x MTDR's 2.09%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-0.65%
We’re deleveraging while MTDR stands at 0.54%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
116.80%
We expand SG&A while MTDR cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.