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.
-26.96%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-36.13%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-206.50%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-206.50%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
38.07%
Net income growth comparable to VET's 39.58%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
38.02%
EPS growth similar to VET's 40.63%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
38.57%
Similar diluted EPS growth to VET's 39.68%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
-0.10%
Share reduction while VET is at 1.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.81%
Diluted share change of 0.81% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-66.63%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-64.96%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-220.24%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-81.09%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-60.51%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-38.33%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-91.99%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-78.32%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-59.71%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-130.15%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-524.79%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
23.73%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-61.08%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 99.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-71.55%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 30.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
1.55%
Below 50% of VET's 6.42%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-76.18%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-92.27%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-92.33%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-36.84%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 32.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.82%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-10.64%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
1.00%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 2.94%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.85%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 1.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.