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.
54.43%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of VET's 77.56%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
5.28%
Gross profit growth under 50% of VET's 81.44%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
492.56%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 378.42%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
492.56%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 378.42%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
557.39%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 21.52%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
411.11%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 35.29%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
423.22%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 23.53%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
26.55%
Share count expansion well above VET's 1.19%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
25.33%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 1.83%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-18.60%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
21.05%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
517.03%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
89.23%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 5152.08%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
89.23%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 234.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
89.23%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 125.08%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
116.56%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 4453.36%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
116.56%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 138.98%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
116.56%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 146.92%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
2174.66%
Below 50% of VET's 4727.34%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
2174.66%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 38.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
2174.66%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 62.81%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
147.31%
Below 50% of VET's 2277.01%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
147.31%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 124.79%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
147.31%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 27.86%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
108.99%
Dividend/share CAGR of 108.99% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
108.99%
Dividend/share CAGR of 108.99% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
108.99%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 108.99% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-8.04%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 38.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-26.64%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 106.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
5.30%
Similar asset growth to VET's 5.85%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
-6.34%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 0.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-7.55%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 31.39%. 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.
-320.40%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.