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.
86.64%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 40.03%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
224.24%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 73.96%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
23983.33%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 141.84%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
23983.33%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 141.84%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
2022.22%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 334.21%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
1992.86%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 334.07%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
1992.86%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 334.07%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.92%
Share count expansion well above VET's 0.17%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-3.59%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-8.87%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 18.34%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-28.64%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-23.01%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 74.32%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
168.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 126.56%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
3.04%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 66.09%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-62.17%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
145.99%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 14.41%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-2.73%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 31.80%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
419.26%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 779.91%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
425.81%
Below 50% of VET's 6360.11%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-1.27%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 0.60%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-82.36%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-45.21%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-49.93%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-86.10%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
70.10%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
103.48%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-1.74%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 16.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.07%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 2.71%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
32.42%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 18.86%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-0.22%
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.
3.79%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 9.22%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.