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.
-16.35%
Negative revenue growth while AR stands at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-31.93%
Negative gross profit growth while AR is at 215.28%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-108.89%
Negative EBIT growth while AR is at 91.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-108.89%
Negative operating income growth while AR is at 91.66%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-104.03%
Negative net income growth while AR stands at 45.13%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-104.13%
Negative EPS growth while AR is at 43.71%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-104.05%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AR is at 43.71%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.85%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.02%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
6.13%
Dividend growth of 6.13% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-3.44%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-17.89%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
179.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 598.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-60.37%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 61.23%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
25.85%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AR's 53.81%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-69.62%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 19.98%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
59.63%
Positive OCF/share growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
142.47%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-100.55%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-101.73%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
98.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-65.42%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 260.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-41.48%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 40.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
7.14%
Below 50% of AR's 16.80%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-90.36%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-71.46%
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.
18.03%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.03% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-20.58%
Firm’s AR is declining while AR shows 57.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.61%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.98%
Positive BV/share change while AR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.24%
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.
-95.62%
We cut SG&A while AR invests at 20.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.