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.
10.26%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 0.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
7.26%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-31.56%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-31.56%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
22.31%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-8.55%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-8.55%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.48%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 10.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-59.62%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-29.47%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-205.96%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
15.97%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 2410.81%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
15.97%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 257.55%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
15.97%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
13.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 4100.51%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
13.97%
Below 50% of VET's 612.26%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
13.97%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
185.59%
Below 50% of VET's 3648.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
185.59%
Below 50% of VET's 1085.65%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
185.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
78.30%
Below 50% of VET's 1963.23%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
78.30%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 124.99%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
78.30%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 40.94%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-62.10%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-62.10%
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.
-62.10%
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.
42.71%
AR growth well above VET's 0.42%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-25.88%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
7.91%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 3.73%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
1.99%
Under 50% of VET's 8.04%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
20.51%
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.
14.01%
SG&A growth well above VET's 17.47%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.