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.
-16.04%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 11.70%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-35.12%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 55.04%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-142.19%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 151.16%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-142.19%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 151.16%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-188.64%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 72.15%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-188.65%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 71.67%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-188.65%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 72.17%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.69%
Dividend growth under 50% of VET's 31.05%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
6.99%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 5.64%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
-710.53%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-78.32%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-71.35%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-50.31%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-87.61%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-84.62%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-62.95%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-144.94%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
2.01%
Below 50% of VET's 89.14%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
3.70%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-63.08%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 61.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-67.81%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
2.38%
Positive short-term equity growth while VET is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-81.06%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-91.83%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-69.12%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-33.40%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.52%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 4.39%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.70%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.09%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 3.58%. 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.
-9.90%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 7.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.