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.
-38.37%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-62.05%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-71.04%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-71.04%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-69.69%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-69.70%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-69.64%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.13%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.33%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-33.19%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-73.31%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
415.69%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 732.07%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
344.68%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 132.71%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
161.95%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 7.96%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
438.64%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1336.93%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
372.62%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 141.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-21.13%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 17.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1378.39%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 1184.16%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
417.65%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 9.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-39.82%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
518.48%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 332.62%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
246.88%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 92.28%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
89.84%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 47.82%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
2016.49%
Dividend/share CAGR of 2016.49% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
5483.84%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 37.53%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
518.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 12.70%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-23.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 8.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-59.38%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 20.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-6.43%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 2.96%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.83%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
22.83%
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.
311.11%
SG&A growth well above VET's 178.77%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.