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.
-24.16%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 10.68%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
79.55%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 12.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
2863.56%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 16.08%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
2863.56%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 16.08%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
66.67%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 31.72%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
67.35%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 35.71%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
67.35%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 28.57%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
58.98%
Share change of 58.98% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
58.98%
Diluted share change of 58.98% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
3.87%
Dividend growth of 3.87% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-57.57%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-33.69%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 108.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-47.39%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-48.53%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 121.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-8.82%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 9.85%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-36.19%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 4.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.19%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 42.90%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
9.08%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 30.78%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.