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.
8.51%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 0.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
3.37%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of VET's 5.52%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
28.63%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 9.30%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
28.63%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 9.30%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
165.94%
Net income growth at 75-90% of VET's 190.79%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
167.80%
EPS growth similar to VET's 181.69%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
167.80%
Similar diluted EPS growth to VET's 185.71%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
-0.12%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.16%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
7.28%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 4.41%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
3.25%
OCF growth under 50% of VET's 13.89%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
9.29%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-83.85%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-6.77%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-18.00%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 42.73%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-82.83%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-15.24%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-38.34%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 565.94%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
28.60%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
126.34%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
106.90%
Below 50% of VET's 1632.02%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-72.96%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 37.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
8.36%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-44.46%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-96.04%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-92.33%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 11.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-69.21%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 8.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
80.59%
AR growth well above VET's 0.01%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 30.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.03%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 5.32%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.84%
50-75% of VET's 1.58%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-2.33%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 7.14%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-10.83%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 2.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.