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.
2.92%
Revenue growth similar to VET's 2.71%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
1.42%
Gross profit growth under 50% of VET's 4.40%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-0.43%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 1.63%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-0.43%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 1.63%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-57.44%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-58.54%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-58.75%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
3.43%
Slight or no buybacks while VET is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
2.60%
Slight or no buyback while VET is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
9.96%
Dividend growth of 9.96% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-2.22%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 38.76%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
12.87%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 490.53%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-38.83%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 25260.11%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-38.83%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 219.42%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-38.83%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 124.54%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
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.
-60.55%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-60.55%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 90.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-60.55%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 38.80%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
79.25%
Below 50% of VET's 1612.71%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
79.25%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 144.59%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
79.25%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 108.28%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
18.74%
AR growth well above VET's 9.51%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-1.08%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 88.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.20%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 6.35%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.89%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 2.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
6.65%
Debt growth of 6.65% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.86%
We expand SG&A while VET cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.