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
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-109.77%
Negative net income growth while EQT stands at 76.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
94.22%
D&A growth well above EQT's 19.88%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-154.57%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
26204.46%
Well above EQT's 47.58% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
410.20%
Some yoy increase while EQT is negative at -80.75%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
50.48%
Some CFO growth while EQT is negative at -17.64%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-63.46%
Negative yoy CapEx while EQT is 34.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
100.00%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while EQT is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-100.00%
Negative yoy purchasing while EQT stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
483.85%
Liquidation growth of 483.85% while EQT is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
175.26%
We have some outflow growth while EQT is negative at -13732.14%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
-303.68%
Both yoy lines negative, with EQT at -51.88%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
95.25%
Debt repayment growth of 95.25% while EQT is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
3.88%
Lower share issuance yoy vs. EQT's 100.00%, implying less dilution. David Dodd would confirm the firm still has enough capital for expansions.
1.88%
Buyback growth below 50% of EQT's 40.33%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.