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.
168.96%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 9.30%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
2212.00%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 10.81%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
129.91%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 19.21%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
129.91%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 19.21%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
152.75%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 74.01%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
152.11%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 75.00%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
152.26%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 75.00%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
1.40%
Share count expansion well above VET's 1.26%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.99%
Diluted share count expanding well above VET's 1.26%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
16.55%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 1.82%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
124.10%
OCF growth above 1.5x VET's 22.71%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
85.61%
FCF growth 50-75% of VET's 131.18%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
-76.47%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-64.31%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-39.50%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-89.40%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 37.71%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-88.07%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 17.65%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-82.89%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-78.00%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
126.62%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
45.04%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-68.23%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 69.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-67.75%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 11.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-0.97%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-84.68%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-92.41%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-89.55%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
50.63%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.34%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
25.25%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-20.74%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-3.93%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.