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.
-58.56%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-71.47%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 18.99%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-119.12%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 62.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-119.12%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 62.85%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-133.89%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 3.57%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-134.37%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 720.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-134.90%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 540.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.28%
Share reduction while VET is at 1.12%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.55%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 11.54%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.06%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
215.67%
OCF growth above 1.5x VET's 33.70%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
81.87%
FCF growth 50-75% of VET's 118.22%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
4.05%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 104.19%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-51.60%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 10.22%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-71.32%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
144.96%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 72.38%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
20.20%
Below 50% of VET's 70.57%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-54.81%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-309.87%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 110.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-171.02%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 9.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-138.27%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
145.45%
Below 50% of VET's 320.19%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
46.21%
Below 50% of VET's 97.40%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-0.10%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 50.31%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
396.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 396.94% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
162.38%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 11.69%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
6.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 11.88%. Martin Whitman might see a weaker short-term approach to distributing cash.
12.34%
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.
-80.00%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 18.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.69%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 0.23%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-5.39%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 10.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.65%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 11.84%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
30.49%
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.