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.
-41.09%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 6.72%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-74.47%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 8.18%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-112.04%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 6.20%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-112.04%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 6.20%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-117.41%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-117.74%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-117.74%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.81%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.42%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 3.94%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
45.62%
Dividend growth of 45.62% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-7.43%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 36.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-26.65%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 144.59%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-37.45%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 64.46%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
14.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 139.60%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
51.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 58.21%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
-36.48%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 62.54%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
388.56%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 44.34%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
22.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 57.26%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-1248.98%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 159.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-142.27%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 365.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
6.64%
Below 50% of VET's 576.14%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-68.37%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 0.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-45.73%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 5.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-57.09%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-79.76%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
162.09%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
76.26%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
46.22%
AR growth well above VET's 20.74%. 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.
6.01%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 4.98%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
-6.93%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 12.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.05%
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.
10.73%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 32.00%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.