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.
26.51%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.70%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 0.33%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
32.40%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 6.29%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
32.40%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 6.29%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-24.51%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 78.07%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.71%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 77.78%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-12.09%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 95.83%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.87%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.44%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
100.38%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 0.45%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
12.92%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-6.11%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
596.28%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 458.06%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
596.28%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 96.86%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
142.03%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 75.14%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1495.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 41062.05%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
1495.67%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 587.68%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
78.93%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 231.91%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
450.57%
Similar net income/share CAGR to VET's 435.54%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
450.57%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 157.49%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
134.04%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of VET's 254.82%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
503.68%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 277.89%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
503.68%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 61.99%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
103.11%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 42.64%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
779.23%
Dividend/share CAGR of 779.23% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
779.23%
Dividend/share CAGR of 779.23% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
354.22%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
37.77%
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.
222.03%
Inventory growth well above VET's 37.36%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
12.18%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 2.74%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-1.36%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 3.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.85%
Debt growth far above VET's 6.32%. 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.
13.30%
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.