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.
87.35%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 0.77%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
167.60%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 2.55%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
626.67%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 13.85%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
626.67%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 13.85%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
269.37%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 103.69%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
267.80%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 98.11%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
268.94%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 103.92%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.77%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 1.67%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.01%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-27.09%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
63.91%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
77.45%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 6147.28%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
48.21%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 120.09%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-72.38%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
35.33%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 46.89%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
-20.66%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 145.38%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-71.73%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-37.84%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 33.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
64.92%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 85.68%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
-39.07%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
244.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 92.56%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-17.51%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 185.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-74.01%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 48.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-68.30%
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.
305.40%
Dividend/share CAGR of 305.40% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-63.33%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-26.38%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-13.44%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 2.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-19.51%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 7.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.54%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 2.97%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
12.03%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 4.75%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-0.22%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 9.50%. 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.
-6.00%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.