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.
39.61%
Positive revenue growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
104.36%
Positive gross profit growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
79.08%
Positive EBIT growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
79.08%
Positive operating income growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-37.63%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-26.99%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-28.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.33%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
1.66%
Slight or no buyback while CVE is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.21%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while CVE cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-32.85%
Negative OCF growth while CVE is at 80.53%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-69.47%
Negative FCF growth while CVE is at 1306.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
478.08%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
478.08%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
135.70%
Positive 3Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1624.12%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
1624.12%
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.
153.74%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1366.29%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1366.29%
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.
149.45%
Positive short-term CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
431.55%
Positive growth while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
431.55%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while CVE is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
132.09%
Positive short-term equity growth while CVE is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
230.26%
Stable or rising dividend while CVE is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
230.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 230.26% while CVE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
177.01%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while CVE cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-15.21%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-12.48%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.80%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
4.11%
Positive BV/share change while CVE is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-12.91%
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.
276.65%
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.