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.
18.48%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
32.96%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-5.94%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-5.94%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-31.82%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-32.50%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-31.93%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
38.84%
OCF growth at 50-75% of VET's 61.32%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
198.09%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
2.64%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 153.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-34.07%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 5.32%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-77.73%
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.
-11.21%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 17.06%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-55.45%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-52.11%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 224.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-90.29%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-96.56%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
357.84%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 156.21%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-1.47%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 52.34%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-28.54%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 15.55%. 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.
101.92%
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.
-49.90%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-5.19%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 5.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-50.00%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 22.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.60%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 4.60%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.42%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
1.88%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 11.19%. 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.
-35.82%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 5.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.