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.
8.64%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of VET's 13.46%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
13.14%
Gross profit growth similar to VET's 14.07%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
-2020.00%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 199.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4550.00%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 34.48%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-165.00%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 181.64%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-165.22%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 227.27%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-177.27%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 227.27%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.59%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.04%
Slight or no buyback while VET is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
1.61%
Dividend growth at 50-75% of VET's 2.80%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in returning cash to shareholders.
-14.41%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 31.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-45.30%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 1373.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
10.77%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 108.30%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-10.27%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 54.57%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
19.45%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
5.42%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 763.37%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
53.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 2.26%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
25.98%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
94.58%
Below 50% of VET's 717.84%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-137.68%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 101.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
34.78%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-38.35%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 2.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-1.32%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 153.91%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
112.72%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 30.32%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
19.47%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
224.25%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
48.27%
Below 50% of VET's 100.01%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
12.58%
AR growth well above VET's 7.57%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.87%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 15.83%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.86%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 6.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
7.39%
Debt shrinking faster vs. VET's 89.59%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.19%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 16.11%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.