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.
-44.59%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-54.72%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-96.32%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-96.32%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-962.12%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-940.30%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-940.30%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
2.25%
Share change of 2.25% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
2.25%
Diluted share change of 2.25% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-25.67%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
84.67%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
57.38%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-51.03%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 2.17%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-65.61%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-32.54%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-64.35%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
160.94%
Positive OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-24.10%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-5303.17%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-211.83%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-13921.41%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-0.16%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 178.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-47.77%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 38.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
9.13%
Below 50% of VET's 27.57%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
23.02%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
-75.11%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-74.88%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-48.24%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
68.33%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. VET's 177.16%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-7.25%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 1.74%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.90%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-3.85%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 14.66%. 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.
-0.48%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 2.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.