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.
-9.73%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-8.23%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-44.22%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-44.22%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
56.92%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
58.82%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
55.15%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.30%
Share count expansion well above VET's 0.60%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.15%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 0.46%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-3.05%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
32.55%
OCF growth under 50% of VET's 112.11%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
79.57%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 716.91%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-14.59%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 26838.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-14.59%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 138.51%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-14.59%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 24.27%. 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.
24.93%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 24.93% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
24.93%
Below 50% of VET's 92.66%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
24.93%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
165.80%
Below 50% of VET's 1980.73%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
165.80%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with VET's 153.03%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
165.80%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 36.70%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
5.60%
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.
28.21%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. VET's 91.50%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
2.22%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.43%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-7.99%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 7.25%. 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.
315.92%
SG&A growth well above VET's 137.12%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.