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.
65.08%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 1.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
113.05%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
348.34%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
348.34%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
220.00%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
219.88%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
216.96%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.18%
Share reduction while VET is at 3.44%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.03%
Slight or no buyback while VET is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.18%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
48.38%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
72.42%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
5.78%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 70.56%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-30.01%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-56.16%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
28.20%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 37.76%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
-39.36%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
141.84%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
164.85%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-34.35%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
379.13%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 326.20%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
46.13%
Below 50% of VET's 122.89%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-11.52%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 56.30%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
168.41%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 8.29%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
-0.71%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-6.37%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 12.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
100.00%
Inventory growth well above VET's 25.69%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
3.34%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 15.15%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
3.58%
Under 50% of VET's 8.19%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-2.15%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 8.52%. 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.
-32.71%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 16.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.