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.
-8.95%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.89%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-41.45%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-41.45%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-55.65%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-54.10%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-54.10%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-4.20%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-4.20%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.21%
Similar dividend growth to VET's 0.23%. Walter Schloss might see parallel free cash flow or payout philosophies.
-16.56%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 34.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
21.79%
FCF growth 50-75% of VET's 39.51%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
-72.63%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 32.58%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-54.13%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
23.99%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 40.15%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-84.08%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 18.95%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-39.15%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
163.69%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 13.36%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
238.41%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-97.03%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-69.51%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 46.83%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-77.43%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 62.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-41.49%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
3.28%
Below 50% of VET's 15.63%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-95.46%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 11.03%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-73.64%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 39.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
19.77%
Below 50% of VET's 204.19%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-4.75%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 25.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.80%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
3.40%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.05%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 2.78%. 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.
-2.84%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.