Ovintiv Inc. (OVV)

Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.

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 2.25% while AR is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.

Diluted share change of 2.25% 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.

FCF growth under 50% of AR's 147.33%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.

Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 794.78%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.

Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 794.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.

Negative 3Y CAGR while AR stands at 794.78%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.

Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 242.83%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.

5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of AR's 242.83%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.

Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 242.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.

Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while AR is at 18.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.

Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while AR is 18.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.

Negative 3Y CAGR while AR is 18.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.

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.

Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.

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.

Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.

Inventory growth well above AR's 3.09%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.

Negative asset growth while AR invests at 7.85%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.

We have a declining book value while AR shows 17.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.

Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.