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.
40.53%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 27.70%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
68.72%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 48.73%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
6650.00%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 269.82%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
6650.00%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 269.82%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-177.89%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 122.06%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-178.67%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 122.19%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-178.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 121.88%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.04%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.92%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.04%
Dividend growth under 50% of VET's 3.65%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
3.36%
OCF growth at 50-75% of VET's 6.47%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
-20.69%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 151.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-83.97%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-42.93%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 6.73%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-59.10%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-86.82%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 62.82%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-61.04%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 22.42%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
7.72%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-116.27%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-116.68%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-188.12%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-75.09%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 37.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-3.82%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-47.07%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-92.82%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-92.79%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 21.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-78.67%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 3.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-41.02%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 32.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.68%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-3.36%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.84%
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.
10.18%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 23.04%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.