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.
-5.01%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 13.65%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.20%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 18.45%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-9.43%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 24.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-9.43%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 24.05%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-12.60%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.98%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-11.13%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.83%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.69%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-5.60%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 2.68%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-28.42%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-45.86%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
101.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 121.13%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
217.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to VET's 212.01%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
98.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 129.03%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
-50.89%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 81.38%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
107.70%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 133.87%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
33.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 85.42%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
155.59%
Below 50% of VET's 428.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
210.93%
Below 50% of VET's 611.68%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
734.12%
Below 50% of VET's 2609.59%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-30.80%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 27.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-27.52%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 36.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-30.81%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 8.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-76.47%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
226.56%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
158.99%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-16.39%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 5.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
100.00%
Inventory growth well above VET's 19.08%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-3.68%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 5.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
14.62%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 8.15%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-7.25%
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.
9.78%
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.