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.
-41.09%
Negative revenue growth while CVE stands at 19.54%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-74.47%
Negative gross profit growth while CVE is at 214.49%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-112.04%
Negative EBIT growth while CVE is at 3981.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-112.04%
Negative operating income growth while CVE is at 3981.82%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-117.41%
Negative net income growth while CVE stands at 498.28%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-117.74%
Negative EPS growth while CVE is at 510.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-117.74%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CVE is at 500.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.81%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.42%
Reduced diluted shares while CVE is at 1.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
45.62%
Dividend growth above 1.5x CVE's 0.56%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-7.43%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-26.65%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-37.45%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CVE stands at 40.76%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
14.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CVE's 84.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
51.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of CVE's 106.62%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-36.48%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
388.56%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 74.26%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
22.90%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of CVE's 93.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
-1248.98%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while CVE is at 44.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-142.27%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while CVE is 222.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
6.64%
Below 50% of CVE's 812.20%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-68.37%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-45.73%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-57.09%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-79.76%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
162.09%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while CVE is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
76.26%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while CVE cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
46.22%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. CVE's 114.74%, 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.
6.01%
Asset growth above 1.5x CVE's 2.87%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-6.93%
We have a declining book value while CVE shows 4.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.05%
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.
10.73%
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.