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.
411.79%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
109.76%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
390.41%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
390.41%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
134.28%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
135.22%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
131.68%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.53%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.26%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.88%
Dividend growth under 50% of VET's 4.33%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-155.54%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-428.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
485.87%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 183.42%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
42.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 19.30%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-15.86%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-873.63%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 239.14%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-158.49%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 100.80%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-148.48%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
1878.88%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 196.27% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
4931.70%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 33.74%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
259.43%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 10.64%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
661.15%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 375.66%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
91.17%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 101.83%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
26.08%
Below 50% of VET's 54.11%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
926.54%
Dividend/share CAGR of 926.54% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
394.15%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 11.70%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
16.75%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 11.95%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
11.27%
AR growth well above VET's 4.98%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
25.00%
Inventory growth well above VET's 4.11%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
0.33%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 1.90%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
8.72%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.46%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 28.52%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-35.43%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 16.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.