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.
164.83%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 6.56%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
195.15%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 3.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
147.80%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
147.80%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
262.73%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
100.00%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
95.12%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
13.18%
Share count expansion well above VET's 0.73%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
15.39%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 0.56%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
104.38%
Dividend growth of 104.38% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
314.66%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 247.33%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
-165.88%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
247.56%
Our AR growth while VET is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
570.74%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
212.52%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 8.63%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
193.38%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 3.72%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
250.84%
We have some new debt while VET 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.
731.43%
SG&A growth well above VET's 13.78%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.