Oil & Gas Integrated
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CVE vs CNQ vs SU vs IMO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Oil & Gas Integrated
Oil & Gas Integrated
CVE vs CNQ vs SU vs IMO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Oil & Gas Integrated | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Integrated | Oil & Gas Integrated |
| Market Cap | $54.61B | $95.18B | $76.59B | $63.57B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $51.21B | $41.50B | $48.91B | $47.04B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3.93B | $10.82B | $5.92B | $3.27B |
| Gross Margin | 19.7% | 30.1% | 59.1% | 21.2% |
| Operating Margin | 11.5% | 27.8% | 31.7% | 9.0% |
| Forward P/E | 7.6x | 8.2x | 7.8x | 15.2x |
| Total Debt | $17.00B | $19.71B | $18.37B | $4.23B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2.74B | $672M | $3.65B | $1.14B |
CVE vs CNQ vs SU vs IMO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) | 100 | 669.7 | +569.7% |
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | 100 | 504.2 | +404.2% |
| Suncor Energy Inc. (SU) | 100 | 375.7 | +275.7% |
| Imperial Oil Limited (IMO) | 100 | 818.4 | +718.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CVE vs CNQ vs SU vs IMO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CVE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.22, yield 2.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.22, Low D/E 53.8%, current ratio 1.57x
- Beta 0.22, yield 2.0%, current ratio 1.57x
- Lower P/E (7.6x vs 15.2x)
CNQ carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 8.6%, EPS growth 81.1%, 3Y rev CAGR -7.9%
- 8.6% revenue growth vs CVE's -14.0%
- 26.1% margin vs IMO's 6.9%
- 3.7% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs IMO's 1.6%
SU plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
IMO is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 333.6% 10Y total return vs CNQ's 307.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.6% revenue growth vs CVE's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.6x vs 15.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 26.1% margin vs IMO's 6.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.22 vs IMO's 0.25 | |
| Dividends | 3.7% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs IMO's 1.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +149.8% vs CNQ's +66.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.5% ROA vs SU's 6.6%, ROIC 10.0% vs 20.1% |
CVE vs CNQ vs SU vs IMO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CVE vs CNQ vs SU vs IMO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CVE leads in 1 of 6 categories
IMO leads 1 • CNQ leads 0 • SU leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — CNQ and SU each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CVE and CNQ operate at a comparable scale, with $51.2B and $41.5B in trailing revenue. CNQ is the more profitable business, keeping 26.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to IMO's 6.9%. On growth, IMO holds the edge at +6.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $51.2B | $41.5B | $48.9B | $47.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $11.2B | $21.1B | $23.0B | $6.8B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3.9B | $10.8B | $5.9B | $3.3B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3.4B | $8.3B | $6.9B | $4.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +19.7% | +30.1% | +59.1% | +21.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +11.5% | +27.8% | +31.7% | +9.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.7% | +26.1% | +12.1% | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +6.7% | +20.0% | +14.2% | +10.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -28.4% | -13.2% | -3.9% | +6.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.0% | +3.7% | +89.2% | -57.8% |
Valuation Metrics
CVE leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.0x trailing earnings, CNQ trades at a 55% valuation discount to IMO's 26.8x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, SU's 5.2x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than IMO's 13.1x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $54.6B | $95.2B | $76.6B | $63.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $65.1B | $109.2B | $87.4B | $65.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 18.32x | 12.02x | 18.02x | 26.81x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 7.61x | 8.17x | 7.80x | 15.20x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.02x | 8.25x | 5.17x | 13.10x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.49x | 3.34x | 2.13x | 1.84x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.27x | 2.93x | 2.36x | 3.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 21.79x | 15.35x | 15.04x | 18.38x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — CNQ and SU and IMO each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CNQ delivers a 26.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $26 in annual profit, vs $13 for CVE. IMO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.19x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CVE's 0.54x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CNQ scores 8/9 vs IMO's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.2% | +26.0% | +13.2% | +14.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.9% | +12.5% | +6.6% | +8.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.9% | +10.0% | +20.1% | +12.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.2% | +10.3% | +19.5% | +11.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.54x | 0.44x | 0.41x | 0.19x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $14.3B | $19.0B | $14.7B | $3.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $2.7B | $672M | $3.6B | $1.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17.0B | $19.7B | $18.4B | $4.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 9.69x | 10.52x | 11.22x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IMO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IMO five years ago would be worth $43,622 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $31,185 for SU. Over the past 12 months, CVE leads with a +149.8% total return vs CNQ's +66.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMO at 41.8% vs CNQ's 20.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +66.2% | +34.3% | +42.0% | +44.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +149.8% | +66.0% | +88.0% | +90.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +88.6% | +76.2% | +130.7% | +185.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +290.1% | +219.5% | +211.8% | +336.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +115.0% | +307.9% | +192.8% | +333.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +23.6% | +20.8% | +32.1% | +41.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SU and IMO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SU is the less volatile stock with a -0.03 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than IMO's 0.25 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IMO currently trades 95.2% from its 52-week high vs CNQ's 88.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.22x | -0.02x | -0.03x | 0.25x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $30.84 | $51.34 | $70.29 | $134.32 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $11.60 | $28.15 | $33.50 | $67.50 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +94.0% | +88.9% | +91.5% | +95.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 76.5 | 57.2 | 69.1 | 59.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 13.2M | 11.4M | 4.6M | 675K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CNQ and IMO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CVE as "Hold", CNQ as "Buy", SU as "Buy", IMO as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply -3.6% upside for SU (target: $62) vs -64.8% for IMO (target: $45). For income investors, CNQ offers the higher dividend yield at 3.74% vs IMO's 1.60%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $27.67 | $35.00 | $62.00 | $44.99 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 27 | 37 | 31 | 20 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.0% | +3.7% | +2.6% | +1.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 2 | 4 | 27 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.78 | $2.32 | $2.30 | $2.78 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.4% | +1.1% | +3.0% | +3.7% |
CVE leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). IMO leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
CVE vs CNQ vs SU vs IMO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the stronger pick with 8.
6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 0% for Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE). Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) offers the better valuation at 12. 0x trailing P/E (8. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) a "Buy" — based on 37 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO?
On trailing P/E, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the cheapest at 12.
0x versus Imperial Oil Limited at 26. 8x. On forward P/E, Cenovus Energy Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO?
Over the past 5 years, Imperial Oil Limited (IMO) delivered a total return of +336.
2%, compared to +211. 8% for Suncor Energy Inc. (SU). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMO returned +333. 6% versus CVE's +115. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Suncor Energy Inc.
(SU) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 03β versus Imperial Oil Limited's 0. 25β — meaning IMO is approximately -882% more volatile than SU relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Imperial Oil Limited (IMO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 19% versus 54% for Cenovus Energy Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is pulling ahead at 8.
6% versus -14. 0% for Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Canadian Natural Resources Limited grew EPS 81. 1% year-over-year, compared to -28. 2% for Imperial Oil Limited. Over a 3-year CAGR, SU leads at -5. 7% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO?
Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
9% net margin versus 6. 9% for Imperial Oil Limited — meaning it keeps 27. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SU leads at 31. 7% versus 8. 8% for CVE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SU leads at 59. 1%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Cenovus Energy Inc.
(CVE) trades at 7. 6x forward P/E versus 15. 2x for Imperial Oil Limited — 7. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SU: -3. 6% to $62. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) offers the highest yield at 3. 7%, versus 1. 6% for Imperial Oil Limited (IMO).
09Is CVE or CNQ or SU or IMO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
02), 3. 7% yield, +307. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CNQ: +307. 9%, CVE: +115. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between CVE and CNQ and SU and IMO?
Both stocks operate in the Energy sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: CVE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CNQ is a mid-cap deep-value stock; SU is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; IMO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.