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.
-18.36%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 11.32%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-39.33%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 23.15%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-66.67%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 182.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-66.67%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 182.07%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-75.16%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 25.13%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-75.00%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 25.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-75.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 25.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.07%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 0.83%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.27%
Dividend growth at 75-90% of VET's 0.30%. Bill Ackman would press for a stronger return if the balance sheet allows.
6.77%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
255.33%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
161.72%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 366.79%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
69.53%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 56.91%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
9.12%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
426.71%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
200.57%
Positive OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-7.17%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-2.45%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 288.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
17.10%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-87.77%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
248.34%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with VET's 268.08%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
160.40%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 49.51%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
48.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 29.44%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
899.39%
Dividend/share CAGR of 899.39% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
701.10%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 11.80%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
305.19%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 11.75%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
6.92%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. VET's 32.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
32.46%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.58%
Asset growth above 1.5x VET's 0.67%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.69%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-5.34%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 47.63%. 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.
41.18%
SG&A growth well above VET's 8.28%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.