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.
-48.13%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-69.85%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-116.77%
Negative EBIT growth while AR is at 27.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-116.77%
Negative operating income growth while AR is at 27.71%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-123.79%
Negative net income growth while AR stands at 905.26%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-118.55%
Negative EPS growth while AR is at 912.82%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-118.55%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AR is at 912.82%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
28.12%
Slight or no buybacks while AR is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
27.89%
Slight or no buyback while AR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
68.11%
Dividend growth of 68.11% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-5.37%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-198.57%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-83.53%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 1800.30%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-60.40%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 108.99%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
13.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 167.52%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-82.25%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 351.94%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-65.97%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 66.81%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
132.32%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 42.21%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-115.65%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while AR is at 151.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-228.12%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while AR is 976.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
55.43%
Below 50% of AR's 17477.46%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-72.76%
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.
20.07%
Below 50% of AR's 99.25%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
29.76%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AR's 22.85%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
-94.27%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-66.69%
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.
48.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 48.51% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
96.71%
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.
41.32%
Asset growth above 1.5x AR's 11.40%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
8.58%
Positive BV/share change while AR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
41.28%
Debt growth far above AR's 26.58%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
122.44%
SG&A growth well above AR's 25.77%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.