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.
-20.50%
Negative revenue growth while AR stands at 1.32%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-37.39%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-101.25%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-101.25%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-11.18%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-11.76%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-11.76%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.01%
Slight or no buybacks while AR is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.01%
Diluted share count expanding well above AR's 0.02%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-0.01%
Dividend reduction while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
63.76%
OCF growth under 50% of AR's 312.08%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
41.12%
FCF growth under 50% of AR's 911.41%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-88.22%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 714.98%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-36.46%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 714.98%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-71.30%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AR stands at 26.42%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-87.64%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 1243.65%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-76.35%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 1243.65%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-60.94%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 189.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-75.90%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while AR is at 12.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
117.88%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 12.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-92.02%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-73.12%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 277.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-4.54%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 277.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-44.15%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while AR is at 70.26%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-92.85%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-92.80%
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.
-79.09%
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.
-1.30%
Firm’s AR is declining while AR shows 18.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.03%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.67%
BV/share growth above 1.5x AR's 1.43%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.48%
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.
23.91%
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.