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.
-26.90%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 12.83%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-35.05%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 13.72%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
507.34%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 21.09%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
507.34%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 21.09%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
104.88%
Net income growth under 50% of VET's 315.24%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
105.99%
EPS growth under 50% of VET's 316.13%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
105.99%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of VET's 312.90%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-44.41%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-515.70%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 113.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
198.69%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 176.42%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
-57.10%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 40.41%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-60.21%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 54.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
521.16%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with VET's 547.67%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
-61.07%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-65.65%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 66.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-83.99%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 259.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-97.09%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 39.74%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-98.73%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 138.76%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
264.25%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 170.17%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-39.66%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 66.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-63.04%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 35.80%. 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.
15.72%
5Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 12.06%. Bruce Berkowitz verifies that high dividend hikes remain sustainable, not a sign of over-distribution.
-50.06%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 0.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-2.77%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 15.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-100.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-31.54%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 3.36%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-48.09%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 3.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-5.08%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 0.10%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.