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.
56.59%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
169.31%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
346.02%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
346.02%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
93.57%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 84.80%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
93.61%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 83.87%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
93.61%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 80.65%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.03%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 0.79%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.03%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-37.22%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-117.36%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
50.67%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 67.32%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
-71.91%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
244.02%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 7.25%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
136.69%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 38.95%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-66.16%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 33.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-47.37%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-159.62%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 138.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-107.51%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-112.83%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
24.14%
Below 50% of VET's 152.90%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-74.10%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 55.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-67.48%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 9.57%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
908.15%
Dividend/share CAGR of 908.15% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-0.47%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-0.02%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-4.93%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 32.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 102.51%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.11%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 6.10%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.09%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 3.61%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
22.57%
Debt growth far above VET's 30.32%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1198.04%
SG&A growth well above VET's 140.89%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.