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.
-16.27%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.09%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-37.33%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.33%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-7.16%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
19.09%
Positive EPS growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
19.36%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-7.63%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-8.96%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
54.70%
Dividend growth of 54.70% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-4.41%
Negative OCF growth while AR is at 7.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-68.29%
Negative FCF growth while AR is at 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-4.98%
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.
-4.98%
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.
-4.98%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
91.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with AR's 83.73%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
91.92%
Below 50% of AR's 266.41%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
91.92%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
84.33%
Below 50% of AR's 196.15%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
84.33%
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.
84.33%
Positive short-term CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-5.69%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 24.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-5.69%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 2.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-5.69%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AR is at 31.02%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-9.76%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 12.12%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-9.76%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-9.76%
Negative near-term dividend growth while AR invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-17.71%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
52.18%
Inventory growth of 52.18% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
9.68%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
20.82%
BV/share growth above 1.5x AR's 1.35%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
14.53%
We have some new debt while AR 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.
4.40%
SG&A declining or stable vs. AR's 24.05%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.