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.
5.73%
Revenue growth under 50% of VET's 31.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
14.09%
Gross profit growth under 50% of VET's 48.69%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
104.96%
EBIT growth 50-75% of VET's 169.65%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
104.96%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of VET's 169.65%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
64.88%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
64.56%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
64.56%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.91%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.08%. 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.
49.35%
Dividend growth of 49.35% while VET is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
8.27%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
21.80%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-56.46%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 29.37%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
21.99%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 78.27%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
5.31%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to VET's 5.45%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-65.22%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 18.51%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
191.43%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 0.74%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-31.84%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-134.36%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-115.16%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-237.14%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-86.88%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-59.33%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-56.57%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-85.59%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
90.00%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
96.33%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
0.08%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. VET's 36.73%, 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.
-0.95%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 6.33%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.60%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-9.01%
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.
-6.01%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.