Ovintiv Inc. (OVV)

Negative revenue growth while AR stands at 16.12%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.

Negative gross profit growth while AR is at 6.45%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.

Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.

Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.

Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.

Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.

Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.

Share change of 0.30% while AR is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.

Diluted share change of 0.30% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.

Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.

10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 231.77%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.

Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 231.77%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.

Negative 3Y CAGR while AR stands at 231.77%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.

10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 116.62%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.

Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 116.62%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.

Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 116.62%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.

Below 50% of AR's 194.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.

Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while AR is 194.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.

Negative 3Y CAGR while AR is 194.69%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.

Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 11.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.

Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 11.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.

Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AR is at 11.72%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.

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.

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.

Asset growth well under 50% of AR's 17.56%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.

Under 50% of AR's 6.88%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.

SG&A growth well above AR's 6.46%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.