Comprehensive Stock Comparison
Compare Greenfire Resources Ltd. (GFR) vs Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) Stock
Analyze side-by-side fundamentals, valuation, growth, and profitability to decide which stock is the better buy.
Selected Stocks
Add up to 10 tickers. Use presets or search to get started.
Quick Verdict
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | GFR | 17.0% revenue growth vs CNQ's -12.7% |
| Value | CNQ | Lower P/E (15.3x vs 433.6x) |
| Quality / Margins | GFR | 27.7% net margin vs CNQ's 15.5% |
| Stability / Safety | CNQ | Beta 0.79 vs GFR's 0.94 |
| Dividends | CNQ | 3.5% yield; 1-year raise streak; GFR pays no meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | CNQ | +60.8% vs GFR's -0.2% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | GFR | 15.7% ROA vs CNQ's 7.8%, ROIC 16.5% vs 23.0% |
Who Each Stock Is For
Income & stability
Growth exposure
Long-term compounding (10Y)
Sleep-well-at-night portfolio
Defensive / Recession hedge
Business Model
What each company does and how it makes money
Greenfire Resources is an oil sands producer that develops and operates thermal oil recovery projects in Alberta's Athabasca region using steam-assisted gravity drainage technology. It generates revenue primarily from bitumen sales — the heavy crude oil extracted from its SAGD operations — with production volumes directly tied to oil prices. The company's competitive advantage lies in its ownership of Tier-1 oil sands assets with established infrastructure and its expertise in efficient SAGD extraction methods.
Canadian Natural Resources is a major integrated oil and gas producer with operations across Western Canada, the North Sea, and Offshore Africa. It generates revenue primarily from crude oil production—including synthetic crude oil, light/medium crude, and bitumen—with natural gas and natural gas liquids as secondary streams. The company's competitive advantage lies in its massive, long-life reserves—particularly its oil sands assets—which provide decades of low-decline production and operational scale.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Financial Metrics Comparison
Side-by-side fundamentals across 2 stocks. BestLagging
Financial Scorecard
GFR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). CNQ leads in 2 (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). 1 tied.
Financial Metrics (TTM)
CNQ is the larger business by revenue, generating $43.0B annually — 58.8x GFR's $731M. GFR is the more profitable business, keeping 27.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CNQ's 15.5%. On growth, CNQ holds the edge at -8.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | GFRGreenfire Resourc… | CNQCanadian Natural … |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $731M | $43.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $181M | $21.2B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $202M | $6.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $22M | $8.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +45.9% | +31.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.7% | +28.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +27.7% | +15.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +3.1% | +18.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -34.1% | -8.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +60.5% | -72.6% |
Valuation Metrics
At 4.8x trailing earnings, GFR trades at a 77% valuation discount to CNQ's 21.0x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, GFR's 4.0x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than CNQ's 6.2x.
| Metric | GFRGreenfire Resourc… | CNQCanadian Natural … |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $745M | $91.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $943M | $105.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 4.78x | 21.02x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 433.58x | 15.33x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.51x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 4.00x | 6.21x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.29x | 3.50x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.71x | 3.25x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 17.84x | 15.41x |
Profitability & Efficiency
GFR delivers a 22.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $23 in annual profit, vs $16 for CNQ. GFR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.41x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CNQ's 0.51x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GFR scores 6/9 vs CNQ's 5/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | GFRGreenfire Resourc… | CNQCanadian Natural … |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +22.8% | +16.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +15.7% | +7.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +16.5% | +23.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +23.1% | +23.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.41x | 0.51x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $271M | $20.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $67M | $131M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $338M | $20.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 4.50x | 10.83x |
Total Returns (with DRIP)
A $10,000 investment in CNQ five years ago would be worth $35,679 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,505 for GFR. Over the past 12 months, CNQ leads with a +60.8% total return vs GFR's -0.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CNQ at 19.6% vs GFR's -18.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | GFRGreenfire Resourc… | CNQCanadian Natural … |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +23.5% | +27.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -0.2% | +60.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -44.9% | +71.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -44.9% | +256.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -44.9% | +420.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -18.0% | +19.6% |
Risk & Volatility
CNQ is the less volatile stock with a 0.79 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GFR's 0.94 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CNQ currently trades 99.4% from its 52-week high vs GFR's 96.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | GFRGreenfire Resourc… | CNQCanadian Natural … |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.94x | 0.79x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.18 | $44.02 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.81 | $24.65 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +96.1% | +99.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 54.5 | 76.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 99K | 7.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates GFR as "Buy" and CNQ as "Buy". CNQ is the only dividend payer here at 3.45% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | GFRGreenfire Resourc… | CNQCanadian Natural … |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $35.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 1 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.07 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +2.1% |
Historical Charts
Charts are rendered on first load. Hover for details.
Chart 1Total Return — 5 Years (Rebased to 100)
| Stock | Sep 23 | Feb 26 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenfire Resources… (GFR) | 100 | 49.49 | -50.5% |
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | 100 | 115.65 | +15.7% |
Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) returned +257% over 5 years vs Greenfire Resources… (GFR)'s -45%. A $10,000 investment in CNQ 5 years ago would be worth $35,679 today (including dividends reinvested).
Chart 2Revenue Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2015 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenfire Resources… (GFR) | $0.00 | $791M | — |
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | $13.2B | $35.7B | +170.8% |
Canadian Natural Resources Limited's revenue grew from $13.2B (2015) to $35.7B (2024) — a 11.7% CAGR.
Chart 3Net Margin Trend — 10 Years
| Stock | 2015 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenfire Resources… (GFR) | 13.2% | 15.3% | +16.4% |
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | -4.8% | 17.1% | +454.0% |
Canadian Natural Resources Limited's net margin went from -5% (2015) to 17% (2024).
Chart 4P/E Ratio History — 7 Years
| Stock | 2017 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | 17.5 | 10.8 | -38.3% |
Canadian Natural Resources Limited has traded in a 6x–18x P/E range over 7 years; current trailing P/E is ~21x.
Chart 5EPS Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2015 | 2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenfire Resources… (GFR) | -0.01 | 1.7 | +17808.3% |
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | -0.29 | 2.85 | +1082.8% |
Canadian Natural Resources Limited's EPS grew from $-0.29 (2015) to $2.85 (2024).
Chart 6Free Cash Flow — 5 Years
Greenfire Resources Ltd. generated $57M FCF in 2024 (+109% vs 2021). Canadian Natural Resources Limited generated $8B FCF in 2024 (+3% vs 2021).
GFR vs CNQ: Frequently Asked Questions
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GFR or CNQ a better buy right now?
Greenfire Resources Ltd. (GFR) offers the better valuation at 4.8x trailing P/E (433.6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Greenfire Resources Ltd. (GFR) a "Buy" — based on 1 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 — GFR or CNQ?
On trailing P/E, Greenfire Resources Ltd. (GFR) is the cheapest at 4.8x versus Canadian Natural Resources Limited at 21.0x. On forward P/E, Canadian Natural Resources Limited is actually cheaper at 15.3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GFR or CNQ?
Over the past 5 years, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) delivered a total return of +256.8%, compared to -44.9% for Greenfire Resources Ltd. (GFR). A $10,000 investment in CNQ five years ago would be worth approximately $36K today (assuming dividends reinvested). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CNQ returned +420.6% versus GFR's -44.9%. 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 — GFR or CNQ?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the lower-risk stock at 0.79β versus Greenfire Resources Ltd.'s 0.94β — meaning GFR is approximately 19% more volatile than CNQ relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Greenfire Resources Ltd. (GFR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 41% versus 51% for Canadian Natural Resources Limited — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which has better profit margins — GFR or CNQ?
Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the more profitable company, earning 17.1% net margin versus 15.3% for Greenfire Resources Ltd. — meaning it keeps 17.1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CNQ leads at 47.1% versus 28.7% for GFR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CNQ leads at 49.3%, 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.
06Is GFR or CNQ more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) trades at 15.3x forward P/E versus 433.6x for Greenfire Resources Ltd. — 418.2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.
07Which pays a better dividend — GFR or CNQ?
In this comparison, CNQ (3.5% yield) pays a dividend. GFR does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is GFR or CNQ 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 0.79), 3.5% yield, +420.6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CNQ: +420.6%, GFR: -44.9%), 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.
09What are the main differences between GFR and CNQ?
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: GFR is a small-cap deep-value stock; CNQ is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. CNQ pays a dividend while GFR does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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 beat both.