PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
-18.58%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-40.04%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-37.43%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.43%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
46.26%
Positive net income growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
49.37%
Positive EPS growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
49.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-16.13%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-16.23%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
52.63%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while CVE cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
1.12%
OCF growth under 50% of CVE's 80.53%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
25.48%
FCF growth under 50% of CVE's 1306.98%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
139.84%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
139.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
152.42%
Positive 3Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
467.41%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
467.41%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 100.00%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
195.65%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
697.91%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
697.91%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 100.00%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
332.86%
Positive short-term CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
135.21%
Positive growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
135.21%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
149.39%
Positive short-term equity growth while CVE is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
146.65%
Stable or rising dividend while CVE is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
146.65%
Dividend/share CAGR of 146.65% while CVE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
173.31%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while CVE cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-3.17%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
21.05%
We show growth while CVE is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.76%
Positive asset growth while CVE is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
29.82%
Positive BV/share change while CVE is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.07%
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.
-89.96%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.