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.
-16.50%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 3.74%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-25.93%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-35.41%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-35.41%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-23.20%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 8.36%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-22.73%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 5.26%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-22.73%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 5.41%. 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.
-6.67%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 15.97%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
105.66%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
32.76%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-83.97%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
12.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-48.06%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-91.64%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-73.86%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-78.35%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-80.99%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
116.90%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 3.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-6.98%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-69.39%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 56.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-24.92%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-24.12%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-92.29%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-92.79%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-78.68%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
9.14%
AR growth well above VET's 4.38%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.14%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 0.74%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.95%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 0.63%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.30%
We have some new debt while VET reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-14.81%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.