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.
-7.94%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 6.10%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-33.60%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-162.05%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-162.05%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-166.34%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-166.39%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-168.10%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.23%
Share reduction while VET is at 1.67%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.84%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 2.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
4.41%
Dividend growth of 4.41% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-9.31%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 112.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-23.06%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 386.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-51.65%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
203.26%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 46.63%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
25.20%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-55.80%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 128.30%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
489.53%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 46.36%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
14.85%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 39.68%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-166.10%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 209.21%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
77.75%
Below 50% of VET's 678.63%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
1.25%
Below 50% of VET's 718.77%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-86.86%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-47.70%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-55.96%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-90.35%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
48.27%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
29.89%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
8.12%
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.
-5.28%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 14.41%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.62%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 29.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-14.82%
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.
8.45%
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.