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.
-5.01%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.20%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-9.43%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-9.43%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-12.60%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-10.98%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-11.13%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.83%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.69%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-5.60%
Dividend reduction while CVE stands at 1.76%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-28.42%
Negative OCF growth while CVE is at 37.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-45.86%
Negative FCF growth while CVE is at 49.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
101.88%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 64.25%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
217.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x CVE's 167.62%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
98.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of CVE's 135.15%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-50.89%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while CVE stands at 55.77%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
107.70%
Below 50% of CVE's 340.25%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
33.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of CVE's 212.50%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
155.59%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x CVE's 118.24%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
210.93%
Below 50% of CVE's 1586.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
734.12%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 448.43%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-30.80%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CVE stands at 8.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-27.52%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-30.81%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-76.47%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
226.56%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x CVE's 120.00%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
158.99%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x CVE's 127.34%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
-16.39%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
100.00%
We show growth while CVE is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-3.68%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
14.62%
BV/share growth above 1.5x CVE's 8.02%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-7.25%
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.
9.78%
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.