Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
VET vs CNQ vs CVE vs SU vs SLB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Oil & Gas Integrated
Oil & Gas Integrated
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services
VET vs CNQ vs CVE vs SU vs SLB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Integrated | Oil & Gas Integrated | Oil & Gas Equipment & Services |
| Market Cap | $1.71B | $94.49B | $53.24B | $73.11B | $84.33B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.81B | $40.74B | $49.40B | $52.01B | $35.71B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-814M | $9.71B | $4.64B | $6.33B | $3.35B |
| Gross Margin | 35.9% | 30.8% | 19.6% | 55.5% | 18.2% |
| Operating Margin | 20.2% | 26.8% | 14.0% | 27.4% | 15.3% |
| Forward P/E | 11.2x | 7.5x | 6.2x | 6.8x | 21.7x |
| Total Debt | $1.30B | $19.71B | $17.00B | $18.37B | $12.31B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19M | $672M | $2.74B | $3.65B | $3.04B |
VET vs CNQ vs CVE vs SU vs SLB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vermilion Energy In… (VET) | 100 | 250.0 | +150.0% |
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | 100 | 519.5 | +419.5% |
| Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) | 100 | 605.4 | +505.4% |
| Suncor Energy Inc. (SU) | 100 | 365.4 | +265.4% |
| SLB N.V. (SLB) | 100 | 305.5 | +205.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: VET vs CNQ vs CVE vs SU vs SLB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
VET ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 4.1% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs CNQ's 3.7%
CNQ carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 23.9%, EPS growth 81.1%, 3Y rev CAGR -3.7%
- 286.3% 10Y total return vs CVE's 109.7%
- 23.9% revenue growth vs VET's -15.0%
- 23.8% margin vs VET's -44.9%
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 5 yrs, beta 0.08, yield 2.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.08, Low D/E 53.8%, current ratio 1.57x
- Beta 0.08, yield 2.0%, current ratio 1.57x
- Lower P/E (6.2x vs 21.7x)
SU lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, SLB doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 23.9% revenue growth vs VET's -15.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.2x vs 21.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 23.8% margin vs VET's -44.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.08 vs SLB's 0.82 | |
| Dividends | 4.1% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs CNQ's 3.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +100.1% vs CNQ's +42.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.8% ROA vs VET's -13.8%, ROIC 10.0% vs 3.5% |
VET vs CNQ vs CVE vs SU vs SLB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
VET vs CNQ vs CVE vs SU vs SLB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SU leads in 1 of 6 categories
VET leads 1 • CNQ leads 1 • CVE leads 1 • SLB leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SU leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SU is the larger business by revenue, generating $52.0B annually — 28.7x VET's $1.8B. CNQ is the more profitable business, keeping 23.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to VET's -44.9%. On growth, SU holds the edge at +25.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.8B | $40.7B | $49.4B | $52.0B | $35.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.2B | $20.5B | $12.4B | $21.7B | $7.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$814M | $9.7B | $4.6B | $6.3B | $3.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $301M | $6.2B | $4.4B | $7.2B | $4.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.9% | +30.8% | +19.6% | +55.5% | +18.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.2% | +26.8% | +14.0% | +27.4% | +15.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -44.9% | +23.8% | +9.4% | +12.2% | +9.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +16.6% | +15.2% | +8.8% | +13.9% | +13.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -16.4% | -14.7% | -12.8% | +25.1% | +5.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -10.9% | -45.3% | +78.7% | +30.1% | -31.2% |
Valuation Metrics
VET leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.3x trailing earnings, CNQ trades at a 49% valuation discount to SLB's 23.9x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, VET's 3.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than SLB's 12.7x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $94.5B | $53.2B | $73.1B | $84.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.6B | $108.1B | $63.4B | $83.6B | $93.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.68x | 12.27x | 18.38x | 17.76x | 23.91x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.20x | 7.47x | 6.18x | 6.82x | 21.69x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.92x | 9.55x | 9.04x | 5.09x | 12.71x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.35x | 2.99x | 1.50x | 2.09x | 2.36x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.08x | 3.00x | 2.28x | 2.33x | 3.06x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.32x | 15.69x | 21.86x | 14.77x | 17.59x |
Profitability & Efficiency
CNQ leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CNQ delivers a 24.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $25 in annual profit, vs $-34 for VET. SU carries lower financial leverage with a 0.41x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to VET's 0.59x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CNQ scores 8/9 vs VET's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -33.7% | +24.6% | +15.2% | +14.0% | +13.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -13.8% | +11.8% | +7.8% | +7.0% | +6.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.5% | +10.0% | +7.9% | +20.1% | +12.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.3% | +10.3% | +8.2% | +19.5% | +14.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.59x | 0.44x | 0.54x | 0.41x | 0.45x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.3B | $19.0B | $14.3B | $14.7B | $9.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19M | $672M | $2.7B | $3.6B | $3.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.3B | $19.7B | $17.0B | $18.4B | $12.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.53x | 14.97x | 11.80x | 11.68x | 9.40x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CVE leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CVE five years ago would be worth $30,275 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $14,136 for VET. Over the past 12 months, CVE leads with a +100.1% total return vs CNQ's +42.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SU at 30.8% vs VET's 1.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +31.7% | +33.3% | +62.1% | +37.0% | +41.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +45.6% | +42.0% | +100.1% | +62.0% | +60.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +4.0% | +81.8% | +79.1% | +123.7% | +26.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +41.4% | +181.1% | +202.8% | +174.3% | +78.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.7% | +286.3% | +109.7% | +176.8% | -11.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +1.3% | +22.1% | +21.4% | +30.8% | +8.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — VET and SLB each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
VET is the less volatile stock with a -0.18 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SLB's 0.82 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. SLB currently trades 95.5% from its 52-week high vs VET's 75.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.18x | -0.15x | 0.08x | -0.14x | 0.82x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $14.82 | $51.34 | $32.07 | $70.29 | $58.82 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.00 | $29.30 | $13.47 | $37.23 | $31.64 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.2% | +88.2% | +88.2% | +87.6% | +95.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.9 | 44.7 | 48.8 | 41.0 | 51.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.3M | 7.8M | 7.9M | 3.4M | 12.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — VET and CNQ and SU each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: VET as "Hold", CNQ as "Buy", CVE as "Hold", SU as "Buy", SLB as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 15.3% upside for SU (target: $71) vs -22.7% for CNQ (target: $35). For income investors, VET offers the higher dividend yield at 4.10% vs SLB's 1.92%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $10.74 | $35.00 | $29.00 | $71.00 | $60.23 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 37 | 27 | 31 | 66 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.1% | +3.7% | +2.0% | +2.7% | +1.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 4 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.64 | $2.32 | $0.78 | $2.30 | $1.08 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.5% | +1.1% | +3.4% | +3.1% | +2.9% |
SU leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). VET leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
VET vs CNQ vs CVE vs SU vs SLB: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the stronger pick with 23.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -15. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) offers the better valuation at 12. 3x trailing P/E (7. 5x 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 — VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB?
On trailing P/E, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the cheapest at 12.
3x versus SLB N. V. at 23. 9x. On forward P/E, Cenovus Energy Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB?
Over the past 5 years, Cenovus Energy Inc.
(CVE) delivered a total return of +202. 8%, compared to +41. 4% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CNQ returned +286. 3% versus VET's -39. 7%. 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 — VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Vermilion Energy Inc.
(VET) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 18β versus SLB N. V. 's 0. 82β — meaning SLB is approximately -550% more volatile than VET relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Suncor Energy Inc. (SU) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 41% versus 59% for Vermilion Energy Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is pulling ahead at 23.
9% versus -15. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Canadian Natural Resources Limited grew EPS 81. 1% year-over-year, compared to -1313. 3% for Vermilion Energy Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SLB leads at 8. 3% 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 — VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB?
Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the more profitable company, earning 24.
5% net margin versus -37. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. — meaning it keeps 24. 5% 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 VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Cenovus Energy Inc.
(CVE) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 21. 7x for SLB N. V. — 15. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SU: 15. 3% to $71. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 1. 9% for SLB N. V. (SLB).
09Is VET or CNQ or CVE or SU or SLB 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.
15), 3. 7% yield, +286. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CNQ: +286. 3%, SLB: -11. 1%), 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 VET and CNQ and CVE and SU and SLB?
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: VET is a small-cap income-oriented stock; CNQ is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CVE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; SLB 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.