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.
-16.35%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 7.01%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-31.93%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 18.04%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-108.89%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 235.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-108.89%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 235.39%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-104.03%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 114.44%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-104.13%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 114.26%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-104.05%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 114.26%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.85%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.46%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.02%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
6.13%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-3.44%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-17.89%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 55.34%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
179.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 31.28%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
-60.37%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 4.45%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
25.85%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 35.73%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-69.62%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 33.89%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
59.63%
Positive OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
142.47%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 4.66%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-100.55%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-101.73%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
98.59%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of VET's 127.86%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
-65.42%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 20.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-41.48%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
7.14%
Below 50% of VET's 18.22%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-90.36%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 14.40%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-71.46%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 39.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
18.03%
Below 50% of VET's 128.98%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-20.58%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.61%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.98%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.24%
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.
-95.62%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.