Ovintiv Inc. (OVV)

Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 28.33%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.

Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 144.59%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.

Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 87.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.

Negative operating income growth while VET is at 87.73%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.

Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.

Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.

Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.

Share reduction while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.

Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.

Dividend growth under 50% of VET's 13.55%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.

Negative OCF growth while VET is at 90.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.

Negative FCF growth while VET is at 100.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.

Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 103.36%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.

Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.

Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 46.54%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.

Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 911.28%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.

Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.

Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 4286.51%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.

Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 37.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.

Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.

Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 178.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.

Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 55.47%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.

Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 10.30%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.

Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.

Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.

Negative asset growth while VET invests at 4.15%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.

We have a declining book value while VET shows 1.61%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.

Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.