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.
-48.13%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 11.75%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-69.85%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 9.24%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-116.77%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 9.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-116.77%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 9.04%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-123.79%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-118.55%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-118.55%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
28.12%
Share change of 28.12% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
27.89%
Diluted share change of 27.89% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
68.11%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while VET cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-5.37%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 13.88%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-198.57%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-83.53%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 60.96%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-60.40%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
13.09%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 112.22%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-82.25%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 72.16%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-65.97%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
132.32%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 103.78%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
-115.65%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-228.12%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
55.43%
Below 50% of VET's 133.96%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-72.76%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 70.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
20.07%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
29.76%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 15.88%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-94.27%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 13.25%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-66.69%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 44.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
48.51%
Below 50% of VET's 195.37%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
96.71%
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.
41.32%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
8.58%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
41.28%
Debt growth far above VET's 3.57%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
122.44%
SG&A growth well above VET's 12.56%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.