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.
12.15%
Revenue growth under 50% of VET's 27.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
9.37%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 5.64%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
3.15%
EBIT growth below 50% of VET's 8.63%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
3.15%
Operating income growth under 50% of VET's 8.63%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-68.39%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 57.72%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-67.71%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 52.83%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-68.09%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 49.06%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.94%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.89%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.81%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 1.92%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.08%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
36.66%
OCF growth above 1.5x VET's 19.98%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
26.91%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 426.51%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
51.13%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 48211.01%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
51.13%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 99.42%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
147.06%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 90.50%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
200.42%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-8.69%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-8.69%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 142.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
131.47%
Below 50% of VET's 462.78%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
227.88%
Below 50% of VET's 2066.88%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
227.88%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 91.21%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
82.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 26.52%. 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.
68.66%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 68.66% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
32.45%
AR growth well above VET's 37.09%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
59.90%
Inventory growth well above VET's 40.57%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
10.94%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 2.63%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.64%
50-75% of VET's 5.98%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
17.58%
Debt growth far above VET's 1.12%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
214.77%
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.