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.
-16.74%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 2.74%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.35%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 1.38%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
1.92%
EBIT growth below 50% of VET's 8.10%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
1.92%
Operating income growth under 50% of VET's 8.10%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
790.82%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 13.41%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
669.68%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 7.41%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
695.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
16.06%
Share count expansion well above VET's 1.90%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
13.32%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 2.86%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-13.05%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
185.43%
OCF growth above 1.5x VET's 89.31%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
359.97%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
96.87%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 5312.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
96.87%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 63.94%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
133.35%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 67.74%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
582.93%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 8519.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
582.93%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 56.78%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
739.11%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 138.08%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
2356.55%
Below 50% of VET's 17487.27%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
2356.55%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 112.89%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
1208.71%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 261.46%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
225.79%
Below 50% of VET's 2583.77%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
225.79%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 83.33%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
178.43%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 28.28%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
242.32%
Dividend/share CAGR of 242.32% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
242.32%
Dividend/share CAGR of 242.32% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
226.57%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 226.57% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-34.82%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-84.84%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 20.89%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.50%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 11.88%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.02%
Under 50% of VET's 0.72%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-19.67%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 47.99%. 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.
-10.02%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.