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.
43.89%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
30.11%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
108.64%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
108.64%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
935.79%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
104.86%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
104.86%
Diluted EPS growth of 104.86% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
0.01%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 1.13%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.01%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 0.89%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
1.99%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-9.26%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 57.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-52.66%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
15.95%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 139.69%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-40.32%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 53.33%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-3.52%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 17.63%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-17.95%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 75.32%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-73.84%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 77.81%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-48.28%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 99.37%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
790.84%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 162.05% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
11281.02%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 101.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
2224.02%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-1.96%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 177.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-61.43%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 86.54%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-43.08%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 47.83%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
41.88%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
-82.77%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-65.53%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-0.08%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 10.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
13.95%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 1.22%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
37.06%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.84%
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.
-11.85%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.