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.
-58.56%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-71.47%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-119.12%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-119.12%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-133.89%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-134.37%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-134.90%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.28%
Share reduction while CVE is at 0.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.55%
Reduced diluted shares while CVE is at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.06%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
215.67%
Positive OCF growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
81.87%
Positive FCF growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
4.05%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CVE's 15.46%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-51.60%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CVE stands at 15.46%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-71.32%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CVE stands at 15.46%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
144.96%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
20.20%
Positive OCF/share growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-54.81%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-309.87%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CVE is at 7.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-171.02%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CVE is 7.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-138.27%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CVE is 7.40%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
145.45%
Equity/share CAGR of 145.45% while CVE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
46.21%
Equity/share CAGR of 46.21% while CVE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-0.10%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CVE is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
396.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 396.94% while CVE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
162.38%
Dividend/share CAGR of 162.38% while CVE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
6.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 6.81% while CVE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.34%
AR growth well above CVE's 0.14%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-80.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.69%
Negative asset growth while CVE invests at 1.21%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-5.39%
We have a declining book value while CVE shows 1.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.65%
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.
30.49%
We expand SG&A while CVE cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.