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.
-5.85%
Negative revenue growth while AR stands at 16.28%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.81%
Negative gross profit growth while AR is at 200.78%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-99.24%
Negative EBIT growth while AR is at 41.21%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-99.62%
Negative operating income growth while AR is at 3.49%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-111.83%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-111.92%
Negative EPS growth while AR is at 343.53%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-111.46%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AR is at 343.53%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.95%
Slight or no buybacks while AR is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-1.40%
Reduced diluted shares while AR is at 0.77%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.94%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-0.20%
Negative OCF growth while AR is at 67.29%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-3.31%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-45.62%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 121.06%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
37.22%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to AR's 37.11%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-35.73%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
118.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 19.53%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
37.14%
Below 50% of AR's 82.24%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
35.18%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-116.97%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-881.48%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while AR is 81.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-104.25%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-40.25%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 37.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
2.11%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
99.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AR's 23.71%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-12.61%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
206.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 206.22% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
112.49%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 112.49% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-17.21%
Firm’s AR is declining while AR shows 41.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-72.85%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-3.96%
We have a declining book value while AR shows 0.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-7.13%
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.
16.67%
SG&A growth well above AR's 9.60%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.