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.
5.24%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 3.37%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
-7.67%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 8.25%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-12.05%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 26.46%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-12.05%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 26.46%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
20.83%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
9.63%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
9.70%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
9.74%
Slight or no buybacks while VET is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
10.17%
Slight or no buyback while VET is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-8.95%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 1.90%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
9.03%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-62.30%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
2.67%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
46.50%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
111.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 66.37%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-47.72%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-28.55%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
74.44%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 21.95%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
16.51%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
626.55%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 449.56%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
125.34%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of VET's 179.14%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
-4.80%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 50.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
2.66%
Below 50% of VET's 40.47%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
108.34%
Below 50% of VET's 279.92%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-58.43%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
310.98%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
226.06%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 226.06% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
21.27%
AR growth well above VET's 4.79%. 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.
1.95%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-6.57%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 1.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.14%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 5.09%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-19.31%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 9.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.