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.
-40.99%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 25.64%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-58.48%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 21.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-125.13%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 15.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-125.13%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 15.78%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-106.93%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 77.50%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-107.07%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-107.25%
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.
-0.20%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 8.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-30.64%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 19.34%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-83.52%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 1098.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
13.34%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 63.28%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-42.43%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-74.95%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
146.90%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 29.64%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-63.85%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-56.63%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 88.44%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-158.75%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-102.39%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-103.94%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
375.33%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 268.78%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
45.90%
Below 50% of VET's 101.16%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-15.25%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 58.91%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
956.80%
Dividend/share CAGR of 956.80% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
208.71%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 12.76%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
-0.47%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 13.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
8.11%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. VET's 40.74%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-50.00%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 32.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.71%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 5.30%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.13%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.57%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 21.44%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
36.11%
SG&A growth well above VET's 62.32%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.