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.
-5.85%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 2.21%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.81%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 12.59%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-99.24%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-99.62%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 52.87%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-111.83%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-111.92%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-111.46%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.95%
Share change of 0.95% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-1.40%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.94%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-0.20%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 58.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-3.31%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-45.62%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 13.56%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
37.22%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 8.72%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-35.73%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
118.92%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
37.14%
Positive OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
35.18%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-116.97%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-881.48%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-104.25%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-40.25%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
2.11%
Below 50% of VET's 12.02%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
99.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 38.12%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-12.61%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
206.22%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
112.49%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 112.49% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.21%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 8.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-72.85%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 0.52%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-3.96%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-7.13%
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.
16.67%
SG&A growth well above VET's 23.90%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.