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.
1.68%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-15.05%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-50.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-50.68%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-51.59%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-56.72%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-55.93%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
11.56%
Share count expansion well above VET's 1.30%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
9.59%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 1.51%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-12.92%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
2.05%
OCF growth under 50% of VET's 54.79%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
163.87%
FCF growth 75-90% of VET's 214.28%. Bill Ackman might push for improved capital allocation or operational changes to match the competitor.
157.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 2217.10%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
157.63%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 128.02%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
122.16%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to VET's 111.91%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
270.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 14311.82%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
270.05%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to VET's 290.77%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
224.70%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 71.55%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
650.34%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 1060.03%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
650.34%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 90.48%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
162.73%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 52.56%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
290.52%
Below 50% of VET's 1062.07%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
290.52%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 64.38%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
119.03%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 48.11%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
355.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 355.76% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
355.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 355.76% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
1102.42%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 22.77%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
17.20%
AR growth well above VET's 1.19%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
15.68%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.31%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-15.40%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
9.64%
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.
55.06%
SG&A growth well above VET's 47.31%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.