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.
-30.55%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
1.96%
Positive gross profit growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-9.82%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-9.82%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.68%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.86%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-10.86%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.03%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VTLE's 0.49%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.15%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x VTLE's 0.49%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-0.03%
Dividend reduction while VTLE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-10.38%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
54.43%
Positive FCF growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
650.59%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
160.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VTLE's 20.03%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
29.84%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VTLE is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1708.47%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
102.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VTLE's 25.81%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
4.89%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1159.25%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VTLE's 58.99% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
435.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VTLE's 67.00%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-14.12%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
885.58%
Positive growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
231.59%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VTLE's 73.01%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
85.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VTLE's 38.15%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
1937.12%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1937.12% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
952.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 952.41% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
516.82%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 516.82% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-10.85%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
3.08%
Inventory growth of 3.08% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
0.72%
Positive asset growth while VTLE is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.69%
Positive BV/share change while VTLE is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-20.40%
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.
14.86%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VTLE's 51.85%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.