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.
6.53%
Revenue growth similar to VET's 6.58%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
-16.61%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
80.51%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
80.51%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
110.84%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
112.16%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
111.56%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.51%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.33%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-4.56%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
44.87%
OCF growth under 50% of VET's 190.31%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
852.90%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 3376.47%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
7.54%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to VET's 7.98%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
-17.00%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 14.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
75.71%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 56.67%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
54.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 21.46%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
64.42%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 79.22%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
73.68%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 147.22%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
284.93%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-41.80%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
232.64%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
9.25%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 10.44%. Bill Ackman would push for either higher ROE or more earnings retention to catch the competitor.
-2.49%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 0.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
157.13%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 218.23%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
8.84%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
321.64%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
210.30%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 210.30% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-11.98%
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.
0.44%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
9.12%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-5.59%
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.
-80.31%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 1.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.