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.
-1.20%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 7.95%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
21.97%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 8.85%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
42.63%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 6.76%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
42.63%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 6.76%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
1968.89%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 26.41%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
2385.71%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 23.26%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
2450.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 29.27%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-19.18%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.87%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-18.90%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
86.34%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 0.09%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-54.38%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 57.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-242.61%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
114.98%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1559.48%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
114.98%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 85.25%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
114.98%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 55.21%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
103.79%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1634.04%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
103.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 1.06%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
103.79%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 13.42%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
195.52%
Below 50% of VET's 1898.74%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
195.52%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 92.19%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
195.52%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to VET's 198.67%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
67.87%
Below 50% of VET's 594.43%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
67.87%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 112.87%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
67.87%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 23.18%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
89.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 89.40% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
89.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 89.40% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
89.40%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 89.40% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
37.86%
Our AR growth while VET is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
103.35%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. VET's 1400.99%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-3.30%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
23.70%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 2.58%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-8.94%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-5.18%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 19.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.