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.
-4.24%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
31.24%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-45.79%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-45.79%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-101.74%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 72.34%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-101.90%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 86.96%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-101.81%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 95.24%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-7.67%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-5.89%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
3.25%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 0.56%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
50.48%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
16.10%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 128.95%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
311.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1997.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
311.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 137.57%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
311.46%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 53.43%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1222.66%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 9925.95%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
1222.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 68.90%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
1222.66%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 151.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-140.96%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 3887.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-140.96%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 121.52%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-140.96%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 113.02%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
298.15%
Below 50% of VET's 1416.52%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
298.15%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 135.67%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
298.15%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 23.69%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
107.74%
Dividend/share CAGR of 107.74% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
107.74%
Dividend/share CAGR of 107.74% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
107.74%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 107.74% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-18.05%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 38.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-59.28%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.50%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 16.03%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
2.73%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 1.62%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-0.65%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 157.43%. 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.
116.80%
SG&A growth well above VET's 135.73%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.