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.
-18.58%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 0.32%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-40.04%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 3.63%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-37.43%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.43%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
46.26%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
49.37%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
49.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-16.13%
Share reduction while VET is at 1.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-16.23%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 1.94%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
52.63%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 0.52%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
1.12%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
25.48%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
139.84%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1909.42%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
139.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 119.93%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
152.42%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 64.60%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
467.41%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 1545.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
467.41%
Positive OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
195.65%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 2.43%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
697.91%
Below 50% of VET's 2424.73%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
697.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 52.99%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
332.86%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 11.42%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
135.21%
Below 50% of VET's 729.59%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
135.21%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 67.06%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
149.39%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 49.61%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
146.65%
Dividend/share CAGR of 146.65% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
146.65%
Dividend/share CAGR of 146.65% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
173.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 173.31% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-3.17%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 7.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
21.05%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.76%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 9.63%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
29.82%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 3.06%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-1.07%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 43.46%. 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.
-89.96%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 63.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.