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.
-29.84%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 4.88%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-38.48%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 5.46%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-75.06%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 8.03%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-75.06%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 8.03%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-74.25%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-74.75%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-74.75%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.30%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 0.64%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.30%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 0.53%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-1.22%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
68.77%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
445.88%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
4.54%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 155.85%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-86.86%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-42.75%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 55.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
55.03%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with VET's 59.27%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
-68.93%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-29.63%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 21.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
12.32%
Below 50% of VET's 192.21%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-94.62%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-69.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 524.25%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-15.29%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 208.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-76.73%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 42.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-68.89%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
717.34%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
-63.63%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-27.41%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-14.94%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 11.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
107.58%
Inventory growth well above VET's 8.91%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.21%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 3.80%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.67%
50-75% of VET's 2.83%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
0.50%
Debt growth far above VET's 0.08%. 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.
11.11%
SG&A growth well above VET's 9.31%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.