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.
68.88%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MTDR's 19.49%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
144.69%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MTDR's 92.28%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
2810.71%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MTDR's 197.52%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
2810.71%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MTDR's 197.52%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
7116.67%
Net income growth above 1.5x MTDR's 423.46%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
7112.99%
EPS growth above 1.5x MTDR's 414.29%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
7236.56%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MTDR's 414.29%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.04%
Share count expansion well above MTDR's 0.01%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-1.80%
Reduced diluted shares while MTDR is at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-4.04%
Dividend reduction while MTDR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-22.47%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-243.59%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-57.55%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MTDR stands at 1382.88%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
23.45%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 224.86%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
52.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 135.90%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
141.75%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 340.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-31.50%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
299.96%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 52.68%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-83.91%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MTDR is at 712.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
114.39%
Below 50% of MTDR's 258.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-26.83%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MTDR is 144.65%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-67.37%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while MTDR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-37.53%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MTDR is at 36.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
16.99%
Below 50% of MTDR's 99.97%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-90.83%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-63.16%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while MTDR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
19.85%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.85% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.80%
Our AR growth while MTDR 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.
0.08%
Asset growth well under 50% of MTDR's 6.49%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.59%
Under 50% of MTDR's 9.38%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.20%
We’re deleveraging while MTDR stands at 5.05%. 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.
2038.10%
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.