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.
87.35%
Revenue growth above 1.5x AR's 43.68%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
167.60%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x AR's 86.07%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
626.67%
EBIT growth similar to AR's 612.46%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
626.67%
Operating income growth similar to AR's 612.46%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
269.37%
Net income growth at 50-75% of AR's 373.34%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
267.80%
EPS growth at 50-75% of AR's 377.78%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
268.94%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of AR's 377.78%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
0.77%
Share change of 0.77% while AR is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.01%
Reduced diluted shares while AR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-27.09%
Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
63.91%
Positive OCF growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
77.45%
Positive FCF growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
48.21%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 326.24%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-72.38%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 326.24%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
35.33%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 326.24%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-20.66%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 35.87%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-71.73%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 35.87%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-37.84%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 35.87%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
64.92%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of AR's 127.44%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
-39.07%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while AR is 127.44%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
244.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 127.44%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-17.51%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-74.01%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-68.30%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
305.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 305.40% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-63.33%
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.
-26.38%
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.
-13.44%
Firm’s AR is declining while AR shows 13.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-19.51%
Inventory is declining while AR stands at 128.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.54%
Asset growth well under 50% of AR's 17.89%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
12.03%
1.25-1.5x AR's 8.07%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-0.22%
We’re deleveraging while AR stands at 29.44%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-6.00%
We cut SG&A while AR invests at 6.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.