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.
39.61%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
104.36%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
79.08%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
79.08%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-37.63%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-26.99%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-28.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.33%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
1.66%
Diluted share change of 1.66% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
0.21%
Dividend growth under 50% of VET's 0.81%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-32.85%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-69.47%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 1512.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
478.08%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 2640.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
478.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 52.09%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
135.70%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 51.95%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1624.12%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 32926.22%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
1624.12%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 100.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
153.74%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 769.51%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1366.29%
Below 50% of VET's 6365.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
1366.29%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 47.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
149.45%
Below 50% of VET's 5255.24%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
431.55%
Below 50% of VET's 1703.83%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
431.55%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 78.92%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
132.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 48.90%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
230.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 230.26% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
230.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 230.26% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
177.01%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 177.01% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-15.21%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-12.48%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.80%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 4.70%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
4.11%
50-75% of VET's 6.97%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-12.91%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
276.65%
SG&A growth well above VET's 484.25%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.