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.
-24.16%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
79.55%
Positive gross profit growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
2863.56%
Positive EBIT growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
2863.56%
Positive operating income growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
66.67%
Positive net income growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
67.35%
Positive EPS growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
67.35%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
58.98%
Slight or no buybacks while CVE is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
58.98%
Slight or no buyback while CVE is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
3.87%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while CVE cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-57.57%
Negative OCF growth while CVE is at 80.53%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-33.69%
Negative FCF growth while CVE is at 1306.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-47.39%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-48.53%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-8.82%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-36.19%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.19%
We have some new debt while CVE 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.
9.08%
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.