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.
20.29%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 18.33%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
15.01%
Gross profit growth under 50% of VET's 61.35%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
132.99%
EBIT growth below 50% of VET's 426.56%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
132.99%
Operating income growth under 50% of VET's 426.56%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
150.33%
Net income growth under 50% of VET's 966.38%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
150.21%
EPS growth under 50% of VET's 975.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
149.15%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of VET's 961.11%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.40%
Share change of 0.40% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
2.39%
Diluted share change of 2.39% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-0.40%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
15.02%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
26.86%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-37.58%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 0.68%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
58.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 64.74%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
4.57%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-26.03%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
241.13%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 14.41%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
62.15%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
124.29%
Below 50% of VET's 932.43%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
152.80%
Below 50% of VET's 513.17%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
52.87%
Below 50% of VET's 1431.91%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-86.16%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-51.37%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-54.42%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-90.76%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
19.56%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
19.52%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
40.60%
AR growth well above VET's 22.67%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.45%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 15.03%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
7.31%
Under 50% of VET's 52.43%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-6.78%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
318.18%
We expand SG&A while VET cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.