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.
2.23%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-2.71%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-72.59%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-72.59%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-233.51%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 49.73%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-236.00%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 47.76%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-236.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 46.97%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-63.55%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 1.24%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-50.59%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 11.86%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-186.73%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 79.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-3.08%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 181.33%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-78.20%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 20.89%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-0.83%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 31.04%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
8.61%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 106.00%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-77.02%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-49.86%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 21.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-222.60%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 459.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-123.68%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 408.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-496.00%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 459.87%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-21.02%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 201.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-77.23%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 56.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-70.38%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 15.13%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
637.70%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 0.50%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
-86.79%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-73.54%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
114.38%
Our AR growth while VET is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
81.02%
We show growth while VET is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.00%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 8.30%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.91%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 7.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.48%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 26.75%. 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.
21.70%
SG&A growth well above VET's 41.07%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.