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.
-11.20%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.65%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.71%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.71%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-60.51%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-60.19%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-60.13%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.95%
Share reduction while AR is at 1.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.13%
Reduced diluted shares while AR is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
3.19%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while AR cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-49.79%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-90.09%
Negative FCF growth while AR is at 166.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-27.22%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 119.57%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
83.80%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 5.06%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
31.49%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-61.60%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
12.84%
Positive OCF/share growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-23.15%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
60.11%
Below 50% of AR's 132.96%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
224.97%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
5.49%
Below 50% of AR's 328.20%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
7.74%
Below 50% of AR's 71.50%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-10.27%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
139.40%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 16.79%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-13.80%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
158.81%
Dividend/share CAGR of 158.81% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
221.47%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while AR cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-3.27%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.77%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-0.09%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
6.42%
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.
2.27%
SG&A declining or stable vs. AR's 110.59%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.