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.
16.49%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 6.15%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
31.21%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 22.21%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
134.02%
EBIT growth 50-75% of VET's 179.03%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
134.02%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of VET's 179.03%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
285.71%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 71.92%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
282.76%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 66.67%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
282.76%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 76.47%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.18%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 0.00%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-31.12%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-291.02%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
176.77%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 68.11%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
-52.12%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 10.53%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-72.94%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
537.27%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 72.50%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-63.04%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-62.37%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
4.07%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-92.90%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-12.35%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
627.17%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 172.48%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
36.80%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 52.29%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
-10.95%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 26.51%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
917.44%
Dividend/share CAGR of 917.44% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
208.07%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 12.25%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
-48.79%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 0.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
11.12%
AR growth well above VET's 15.09%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-33.33%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 24.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.70%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-2.38%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
5.11%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 24.29%. 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.
38.78%
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.