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.
-2.84%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
2.67%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
4.38%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
4.38%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-63.06%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-63.64%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-63.20%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-2.03%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.89%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.56%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 2.47%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-51.01%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-15.63%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 36.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-565.57%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 36.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-42.08%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 25069.95%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-42.08%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 268.48%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-42.08%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 3.90%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
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.
-33.38%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-33.38%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 661.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-33.38%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
75.99%
Below 50% of VET's 1461.09%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
75.99%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with VET's 80.36%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
75.99%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 37.76%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-27.31%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
59.61%
Inventory growth well above VET's 36.23%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.67%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.99%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
13.61%
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.
-2.69%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.