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.
57.79%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 0.66%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
142.67%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 10.12%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
1020.37%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 156.80%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
1020.37%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 156.80%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
253.38%
Net income growth under 50% of VET's 1204.66%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
234.15%
EPS growth under 50% of VET's 1217.65%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
234.15%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of VET's 1207.78%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
13.36%
Share change of 13.36% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
13.36%
Diluted share change of 13.36% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-5.49%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 26.57%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-46.73%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 7.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-90.26%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 404.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-76.60%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-45.44%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-47.79%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-94.94%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 6.06%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-87.00%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 12.61%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-91.44%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-20.96%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
2617.93%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
182.96%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-64.84%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 59.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-41.72%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-5.06%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-91.06%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-92.28%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-77.60%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
77.76%
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.
0.29%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-6.04%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 2.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.10%
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.
2.27%
SG&A growth well above VET's 2.94%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.