PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
40.40 - 41.05
29.80 - 47.18
2.12M / 3.68M (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.
-25.13%
Negative revenue growth while CVE stands at 28.15%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-45.65%
Negative gross profit growth while CVE is at 150.63%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-134.42%
Negative EBIT growth while CVE is at 557.14%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-134.42%
Negative operating income growth while CVE is at 557.14%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-200.00%
Negative net income growth while CVE stands at 36.09%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-200.00%
Negative EPS growth while CVE is at 35.85%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-198.75%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CVE is at 35.85%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-2.86%
Share reduction while CVE is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.18%
Reduced diluted shares while CVE is at 0.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.92%
Dividend reduction while CVE stands at 3.33%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
24.67%
OCF growth under 50% of CVE's 533.33%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
5.51%
FCF growth under 50% of CVE's 130.67%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
-89.33%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CVE stands at 28.30%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-61.36%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
5.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of CVE's 7.54%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-81.09%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-33.13%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
42.08%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 7.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-109.83%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-116.13%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
91.64%
Positive short-term CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-75.19%
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.
-4.53%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CVE is at 17.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-25.92%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CVE is at 15.49%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-96.29%
Cut dividends over 10 years while CVE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-89.89%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-66.27%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
4.25%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. CVE's 50.80%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.12%
Asset growth well under 50% of CVE's 1.23%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.30%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.88%
We’re deleveraging while CVE stands at 2.16%. 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.
32.50%
We expand SG&A while CVE cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.