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.
12.21%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 5.64%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
-11.05%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 5.57%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-11.02%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.02%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-18.12%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
13.67%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
11.51%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-5.18%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-3.90%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
430.43%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 23.64%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
98.00%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
91.59%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
187.68%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1436.92%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
187.68%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 228.24%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
187.68%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
791.79%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 8167.84%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
791.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 489.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
791.79%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
135.24%
Below 50% of VET's 1258.39%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
135.24%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 239.60%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
135.24%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
197.22%
Below 50% of VET's 1292.45%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
197.22%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 137.22%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
197.22%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 38.12%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
93.57%
Dividend/share CAGR of 93.57% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
93.57%
Dividend/share CAGR of 93.57% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
93.57%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 93.57% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
26.01%
AR growth well above VET's 7.25%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-52.34%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
2.93%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
6.38%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.40%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 16.42%. 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.
15.22%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 238.22%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.