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.
411.79%
Positive revenue growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
109.76%
Positive gross profit growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
390.41%
Positive EBIT growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
390.41%
Positive operating income growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
134.28%
Positive net income growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
135.22%
Positive EPS growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
131.68%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.53%
Share reduction while VTLE is at 0.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.26%
Reduced diluted shares while VTLE is at 0.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.88%
Dividend growth of 0.88% while VTLE is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-155.54%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-428.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
485.87%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
42.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VTLE's 20.03%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-15.86%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-873.63%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-158.49%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VTLE is at 25.81%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-148.48%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
1878.88%
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.
4931.70%
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.
259.43%
Positive short-term CAGR while VTLE is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
661.15%
Positive growth while VTLE is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
91.17%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VTLE's 73.01%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
26.08%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VTLE's 38.15%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
926.54%
Dividend/share CAGR of 926.54% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
394.15%
Dividend/share CAGR of 394.15% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
16.75%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 16.75% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
11.27%
Our AR growth while VTLE is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
25.00%
Inventory growth of 25.00% while VTLE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
0.33%
Positive asset growth while VTLE is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
8.72%
Positive BV/share change while VTLE is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.46%
We have some new debt while VTLE reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-35.43%
We cut SG&A while VTLE invests at 51.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.