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.
58.07%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
163.75%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
206.96%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
206.96%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
23.23%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
23.20%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
23.41%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.05%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.23%
Slight or no buyback while VET is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
2.75%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
52.01%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
95.51%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-66.84%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-52.62%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 8.20%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
12.06%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-61.62%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 20.17%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-70.06%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-65.27%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-573.05%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-278.61%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
13.02%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-50.44%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 157.24%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-66.09%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 15.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
6.58%
Below 50% of VET's 31.39%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-39.24%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-77.36%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-77.37%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-6.13%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 2.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-69.64%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-9.18%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 1.67%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-14.01%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 0.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.51%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 4.77%. 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.
-1.04%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.