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.
8.51%
Positive revenue growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
3.37%
Positive gross profit growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
28.63%
EBIT growth 50-75% of CVE's 54.89%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
28.63%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of CVE's 54.89%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
165.94%
Positive net income growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
167.80%
Positive EPS growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
167.80%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.12%
Share reduction while CVE is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.16%
Reduced diluted shares while CVE is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
7.28%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while CVE cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
3.25%
Positive OCF growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
9.29%
Positive FCF growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-83.85%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CVE stands at 4.99%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-6.77%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-18.00%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-82.83%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-15.24%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-38.34%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
28.60%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
126.34%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
106.90%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 38.11%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-72.96%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CVE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
8.36%
Below 50% of CVE's 21.29%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-44.46%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CVE is at 10.08%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-96.04%
Cut dividends over 10 years while CVE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-92.33%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-69.21%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
80.59%
Our AR growth while CVE is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while CVE stands at 0.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.03%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.84%
Positive BV/share change while CVE is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.33%
We’re deleveraging while CVE stands at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-10.83%
We cut SG&A while CVE invests at 96.70%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.