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.
20.48%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 17.87%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
27.46%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 16.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
41.97%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 34.08%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
41.97%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 34.08%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
115.34%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 78.37%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
33.82%
EPS growth under 50% of VET's 71.43%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
37.88%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of VET's 71.43%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
58.62%
Share count expansion well above VET's 2.94%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
56.84%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 1.58%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-55.10%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
39.67%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
21.12%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 44.08%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-15.63%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 3126.42%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-15.63%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 430.50%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-15.63%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 105.48%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-18.61%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 3520.41%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-18.61%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 184.25%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-18.61%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 90.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
87.71%
Below 50% of VET's 4910.26%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
87.71%
Below 50% of VET's 396.71%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
87.71%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 44.37%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
17.01%
Below 50% of VET's 1992.19%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
17.01%
Below 50% of VET's 245.33%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
17.01%
Below 50% of VET's 97.85%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
4.83%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.83% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
4.83%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.83% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
4.83%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 4.83% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.76%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. VET's 44.29%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.02%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.56%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 5.59%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-34.29%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 3.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-4.80%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
21.67%
We expand SG&A while VET cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.