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.
57.79%
Revenue growth above 1.5x AR's 16.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
142.67%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x AR's 63.93%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
1020.37%
EBIT growth above 1.5x AR's 179.33%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
1020.37%
Operating income growth above 1.5x AR's 179.33%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
253.38%
Net income growth above 1.5x AR's 155.25%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
234.15%
EPS growth above 1.5x AR's 155.19%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
234.15%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x AR's 155.19%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
13.36%
Share change of 13.36% while AR is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
13.36%
Diluted share change of 13.36% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-5.49%
Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-46.73%
Negative OCF growth while AR is at 17.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-90.26%
Negative FCF growth while AR is at 115.97%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-76.60%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 1162.79%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-45.44%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 1162.79%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-47.79%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AR stands at 38.88%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-94.94%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 223.74%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-87.00%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 223.74%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-91.44%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 19.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-20.96%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
2617.93%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
182.96%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of AR's 335.66%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
-64.84%
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.
-41.72%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-5.06%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AR is at 79.89%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-91.06%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-92.28%
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.
-77.60%
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.
77.76%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.29%
Asset growth well under 50% of AR's 4.44%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-6.04%
We have a declining book value while AR shows 6.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.10%
We’re deleveraging while AR stands at 1.52%. 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.
2.27%
We expand SG&A while AR cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.