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.
-16.27%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.09%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-37.33%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.33%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-7.16%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 4634.58%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
19.09%
EPS growth under 50% of VET's 4340.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
19.36%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of VET's 4340.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-7.63%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-8.96%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
54.70%
Dividend growth of 54.70% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-4.41%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 282.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-68.29%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 282.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-4.98%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 1120.82%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-4.98%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 503.26%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-4.98%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 36.28%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
91.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1506.24%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
91.92%
Below 50% of VET's 416.29%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
91.92%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
84.33%
Below 50% of VET's 2165.97%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
84.33%
Below 50% of VET's 2732.46%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
84.33%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of VET's 117.88%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
-5.69%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 454.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-5.69%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 142.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-5.69%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 69.97%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-9.76%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-9.76%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-9.76%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-17.71%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
52.18%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
9.68%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
20.82%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 2.00%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
14.53%
We have some new debt while VET reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.40%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 15.57%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.