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.
20.48%
Positive revenue growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
27.46%
Positive gross profit growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
41.97%
Positive EBIT growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
41.97%
Positive operating income growth while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
115.34%
Positive net income growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
33.82%
Positive EPS growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
37.88%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
58.62%
Slight or no buybacks while AR is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
56.84%
Slight or no buyback while AR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-55.10%
Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
39.67%
OCF growth above 1.5x AR's 7.56%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
21.12%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x AR's 15.38%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
-15.63%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 226.56%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-15.63%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 76.73%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-15.63%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-18.61%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 83.73%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-18.61%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 266.41%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-18.61%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
87.71%
Below 50% of AR's 196.15%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
87.71%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of AR's 129.17%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
87.71%
Positive short-term CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
17.01%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of AR's 24.95%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
17.01%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 2.75%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
17.01%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of AR's 31.02%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
4.83%
Below 50% of AR's 12.12%. Michael Burry might see weaker long-term distribution growth, raising questions about the firm's capital allocation.
4.83%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.83% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
4.83%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 4.83% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.76%
Our AR growth while AR is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
2.02%
Inventory growth of 2.02% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.56%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-34.29%
We have a declining book value while AR shows 1.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-4.80%
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.
21.67%
SG&A growth well above AR's 24.05%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.