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.
88.67%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
189.76%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
1037.82%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1037.82%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
2541.03%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 2241.68%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
2595.00%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 2210.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
2595.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 2208.98%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
-0.18%
Share reduction while VET is at 1.27%. 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.
-6.98%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-36.84%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-41.99%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 257.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-71.76%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 13.66%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
29.57%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
104.22%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 42.09%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-78.47%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-6.30%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
10.34%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-24.74%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 983.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
417.78%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 113.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
248.83%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to VET's 265.84%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
-74.49%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 72.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
12.04%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 9.79%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
6.79%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 10.44%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-96.59%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 15.55%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-74.19%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 58.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-70.52%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 192.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-35.11%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 5.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.17%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 5.95%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
14.88%
1.25-1.5x VET's 10.14%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-0.12%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 3.52%. 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.
-24.18%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 16.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.