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.
28.40%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 13.85%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
81.45%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 67.87%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
60.76%
EBIT growth similar to VET's 58.89%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
60.76%
Operating income growth similar to VET's 58.89%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
59.63%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 17.47%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
59.49%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 18.18%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
59.66%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 18.18%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.28%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.28%
Dividend growth of 0.28% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
45.84%
Similar OCF growth to VET's 44.06%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
164.79%
FCF growth above 1.5x VET's 20.43%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-39.31%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-3.54%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 4.17%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-5.17%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-55.53%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
4.46%
Positive OCF/share growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
46.32%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-730.97%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
34.70%
Below 50% of VET's 71.52%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-101.34%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-87.41%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-59.50%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-57.18%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-90.72%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-59.95%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
28.73%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-14.75%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 9.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4.54%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-11.59%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-1.95%
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.
-77.70%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 20.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.