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.
-20.50%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-37.39%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-101.25%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-101.25%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-11.18%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-11.76%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-11.76%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.01%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 0.64%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.01%
Slight or no buyback while VET is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.01%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 11.78%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
63.76%
OCF growth above 1.5x VET's 9.80%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
41.12%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-88.22%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-36.46%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-71.30%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-87.64%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-76.35%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-60.94%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-75.90%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
117.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-92.02%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-73.12%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 28.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-4.54%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-44.15%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-92.85%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-92.80%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 13.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-79.09%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-1.30%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 13.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.03%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.67%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.48%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 2.98%. 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.
23.91%
We expand SG&A while VET cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.