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.
4.59%
Revenue growth under 50% of VET's 10.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
7.03%
Gross profit growth under 50% of VET's 14.85%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-152.91%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 15.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-152.91%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 15.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-305.00%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-306.17%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-306.17%
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.
-0.18%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 7.07%. 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.
-16.98%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 58.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-21.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
94.91%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 171.15%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
-24.34%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 18.92%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-62.20%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 8.29%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
198.22%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 345.08%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
-19.41%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 13.90%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-44.64%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-444.10%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-145.86%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-123.28%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
347.81%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 174.50%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
14.67%
Below 50% of VET's 67.00%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-27.59%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 28.63%. 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.
131.87%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 7.92%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
-50.07%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
2.03%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. VET's 11.70%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
100.00%
Inventory growth well above VET's 5.11%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-2.16%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 6.51%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.54%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 8.71%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-6.57%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
137.21%
SG&A growth well above VET's 36.45%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.