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.
-25.13%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 23.95%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-45.65%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 28.34%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-134.42%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 82.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-134.42%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 82.66%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-200.00%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-200.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-198.75%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-2.86%
Share reduction while VET is at 9.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.18%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 8.29%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.92%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 8.41%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
24.67%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
5.51%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 191.01%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-89.33%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-61.36%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
5.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 22.30%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-81.09%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-33.13%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
42.08%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-109.83%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-116.13%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
91.64%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-75.19%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 93.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-4.53%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 30.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-25.92%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 9.86%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-96.29%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-89.89%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 26.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-66.27%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 103.18%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
4.25%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. VET's 38.61%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.12%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 35.73%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.30%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 55.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.88%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 18.89%. 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.
32.50%
We expand SG&A while VET cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.