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.
-4.59%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 12.64%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
14.76%
Gross profit growth at 75-90% of VET's 17.82%. Bill Ackman would demand operational improvements to match competitor gains.
53.69%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 48.15%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
53.69%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 48.15%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
-13.75%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 890.31%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-13.92%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-12.26%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-24.01%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-24.17%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 1.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
31.72%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-45.29%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 45.21%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-407.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
54.38%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1169.40%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
54.38%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 197.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
54.38%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 38.94%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
75.24%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1223.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
75.24%
Below 50% of VET's 363.16%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
75.24%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-16.69%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 5238.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-16.69%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 1382.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-16.69%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 223.47%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
33.77%
Below 50% of VET's 618.24%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
33.77%
Below 50% of VET's 146.19%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
33.77%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 44.63%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
24.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 24.75% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
24.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 24.75% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
24.75%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 24.75% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
13.47%
AR growth well above VET's 13.04%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
99.73%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
16.86%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 3.21%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
32.04%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 19.78%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
49.83%
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.
-78.47%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.