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.
-9.50%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
8.09%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-15.22%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-15.22%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
12.56%
Net income growth under 50% of VET's 45.86%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
14.68%
EPS growth under 50% of VET's 46.67%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
14.47%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of VET's 50.31%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.98%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.72%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-6.54%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 31.50%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-9.04%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 10.63%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
14.63%
FCF growth 50-75% of VET's 23.63%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
19.07%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 125.18%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
108.65%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to VET's 110.98%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
115.36%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 83.97%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
-27.39%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 201.54%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
86.39%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 146.32%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
25.77%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 114.54%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1092.89%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 322.66% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
558.23%
Below 50% of VET's 3329.53%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
23446.77%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to VET's 25480.14%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
-13.60%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 45.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-10.17%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 65.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-18.75%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 32.46%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-78.01%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
205.07%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
128.06%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-9.15%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.74%
Asset growth at 75-90% of VET's 5.79%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
19.76%
Similar to VET's 18.21%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-0.75%
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.
-0.99%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 1.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.