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.
-129.30%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 20.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
7.42%
Gross profit growth under 50% of VET's 15.42%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
110.61%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 66.60%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
110.61%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 66.60%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
2444.00%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 589.13%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
2720.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 516.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
2720.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 460.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.03%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 11.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-50.00%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-48.46%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-58.78%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 90.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-188.26%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 220.55%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-146.64%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-134.26%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
266.04%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 177.15%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
69.02%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 15.97%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-1.09%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
771.98%
Similar net income/share CAGR to VET's 825.50%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
-61.67%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 566.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
16.21%
Below 50% of VET's 469.63%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
346.73%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with VET's 356.67%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
80.64%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 103.16%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
14.39%
Below 50% of VET's 58.03%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
956.98%
Dividend/share CAGR of 956.98% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
405.76%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 7.66%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
131.91%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 7.80%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-38.57%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 33.36%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-98.35%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-36.14%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-33.43%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 26.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-45.47%
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.
-12.41%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 2.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.