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.
4.97%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of AR's 7.28%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
92.74%
Gross profit growth under 50% of AR's 15124.85%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
9.56%
EBIT growth below 50% of AR's 88.88%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
9.56%
Operating income growth under 50% of AR's 88.88%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
49.12%
Net income growth at 50-75% of AR's 68.87%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
50.78%
EPS growth at 50-75% of AR's 68.71%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
51.18%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of AR's 68.71%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-1.54%
Share reduction while AR is at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.53%
Reduced diluted shares while AR is at 0.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.45%
Dividend growth of 0.45% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
1.38%
OCF growth under 50% of AR's 15.80%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
22.62%
FCF growth under 50% of AR's 977.18%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-42.48%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 104.20%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
25.40%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AR's 22.74%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
27.45%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-16.96%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
36.47%
Positive OCF/share growth while AR is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
23.48%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-89.79%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
243.51%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 97.70%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
790.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 96.25%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-36.56%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 56.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
8.42%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
175.31%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 45.19%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-13.51%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
228.10%
Dividend/share CAGR of 228.10% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
106.82%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to AR's 101.87%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
6.20%
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.
257.99%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.78%
Positive BV/share change while AR is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-3.10%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-6.49%
We cut SG&A while AR invests at 71.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.