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.
-1.33%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-5.14%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.68%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.68%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-31.01%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-32.16%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-31.98%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
2.09%
Share count expansion well above VET's 1.48%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.25%
Slight or no buyback while VET is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
32.49%
Dividend growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 22.44%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if management’s capital return strategy is more aggressive yet sustainable.
-22.19%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-58.30%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-25.11%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
93.79%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 4.45%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
261.15%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 133.64%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-11.46%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
32.40%
Positive OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
639.87%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 2422.37%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-72.83%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
268.40%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to VET's 271.71%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
107.99%
Below 50% of VET's 272.02%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
3.60%
Below 50% of VET's 52.38%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
8.52%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 16.62%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
65.24%
Below 50% of VET's 255.62%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-54.90%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
346.01%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
243.78%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-1.56%
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.
29.07%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
15.60%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
51.54%
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.
27.06%
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.