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.
-11.20%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.65%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.71%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 71.88%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-21.71%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 71.88%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-60.51%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 100.29%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-60.19%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 100.29%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-60.13%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 100.29%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.95%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.13%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
3.19%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 0.59%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-49.79%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 3.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-90.09%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-27.22%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
83.80%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
31.49%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 19.12%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-61.60%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 26.10%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
12.84%
Below 50% of VET's 64.53%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-23.15%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 193.06%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
60.11%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
224.97%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
5.49%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
7.74%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 3.29%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-10.27%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 3.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
139.40%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 108.36%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
-13.80%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
158.81%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
221.47%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 221.47% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-3.27%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 50.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.77%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 1.42%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.09%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
6.42%
Debt growth far above VET's 1.63%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.27%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 5.56%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.