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.
-20.58%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-40.39%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-41.75%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-41.75%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-63.52%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-63.08%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-62.83%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.29%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.63%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 2.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
13.73%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 0.60%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
22.06%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-11.41%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
44.06%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 18.71%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
54.52%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 42.32%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
2.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 50.72%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
88.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 24.46%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
122.94%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 70.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
100.66%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 34.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
167.57%
Below 50% of VET's 345.54%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
156.51%
Below 50% of VET's 1038.89%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
23.02%
Below 50% of VET's 127.78%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
0.40%
Below 50% of VET's 60.14%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-7.34%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 81.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-17.62%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 215.85%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-75.18%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
223.44%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
170.29%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-16.29%
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.
0.45%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 4.21%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.01%
Under 50% of VET's 11.57%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
4.12%
We have some new debt while VET reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.80%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 6.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.