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.
-33.55%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 34.94%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-48.52%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 54.88%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-1010.00%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 1032.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-1010.00%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 1032.04%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
5.68%
Net income growth under 50% of VET's 434.35%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
15.01%
EPS growth under 50% of VET's 500.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
15.01%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of VET's 500.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
11.01%
Share count expansion well above VET's 1.68%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
11.01%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 1.32%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-12.29%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-38.17%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 494.64%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-75.20%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 129.01%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-76.02%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 26.70%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-50.46%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 14.95%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-0.62%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-64.83%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 57.87%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-70.74%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-58.66%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-298.53%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-179.55%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
4.91%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-40.28%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 171.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-59.15%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 37.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
0.08%
Below 50% of VET's 29.23%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-42.09%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-77.93%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-77.97%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-20.11%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
10.89%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-16.61%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-26.01%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-12.14%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 2.16%. 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.
-6.80%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 2.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.