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.
66.40%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
139.84%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
337.00%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
337.00%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
237.14%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
222.00%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
222.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
13.06%
Share count expansion well above VET's 1.24%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
13.06%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 1.48%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-21.03%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
71.27%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
175.36%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 597.11%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-70.29%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 41.97%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-30.56%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
246.05%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 76.25%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-74.80%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 2378.27%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-36.62%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
569.07%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 2.52%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-23.55%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-33.47%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
134.27%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 102.68%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
-77.54%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 65.52%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-21.07%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
25.10%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 20.52%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
-95.48%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 10.81%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-73.17%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 36.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
39.31%
Below 50% of VET's 209.01%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
5.50%
Our AR growth while VET is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.29%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-14.50%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
2.84%
Debt growth far above VET's 1.26%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.74%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.