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.
40.22%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 15.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
145.91%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 17.63%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
94.03%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 47.07%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
94.03%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 47.07%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
16.06%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.00%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.03%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.60%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.03%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
80.98%
OCF growth above 1.5x VET's 20.10%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
318.67%
FCF growth above 1.5x VET's 29.76%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-26.89%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 128.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-81.46%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-73.05%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 37.31%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
232.03%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 57.04%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-47.72%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-56.79%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 21.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-1358.85%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 125.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-234.80%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-5178.11%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 25.02%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-14.95%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 147.71%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-71.85%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 37.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-77.43%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 37.27%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
352.84%
Dividend/share CAGR of 352.84% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-0.69%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-49.99%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-6.11%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-63.93%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-5.80%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 2.96%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-19.25%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.35%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 8.93%. 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.
7.37%
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.