Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
VET vs CVE vs JPM vs SU vs CNQ vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Oil & Gas Integrated
Banks - Diversified
Oil & Gas Integrated
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
VET vs CVE vs JPM vs SU vs CNQ vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Integrated | Banks - Diversified | Oil & Gas Integrated | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $1.71B | $53.24B | $896.00B | $73.11B | $94.49B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.81B | $49.40B | $280.33B | $52.01B | $40.74B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-814M | $4.64B | $57.05B | $6.33B | $9.71B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 35.9% | 19.6% | 60.0% | 55.5% | 30.8% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 20.2% | 14.0% | 25.9% | 27.4% | 26.8% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 11.2x | 6.2x | 14.4x | 6.8x | 7.5x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $1.30B | $17.00B | $942.38B | $18.37B | $19.71B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19M | $2.74B | $343.34B | $3.65B | $672M | $10.27B |
VET vs CVE vs JPM vs SU vs CNQ vs KO — 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% |
| Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) | 100 | 605.4 | +505.4% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
| Suncor Energy Inc. (SU) | 100 | 365.4 | +265.4% |
| Canadian Natural Re… (CNQ) | 100 | 519.5 | +419.5% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: VET vs CVE vs JPM vs SU vs CNQ vs KO
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 KO's 2.5%
CVE carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- 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 25.3x)
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.81 vs KO's 2.26
SU doesn't hold a clear category lead here; it's more of a secondary option in this specific comparison.
CNQ is the clearest fit if your priority is 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 JPM's 465.8%
- 23.9% revenue growth vs VET's -15.0%
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 27.8% margin vs VET's -44.9%
- 13.1% ROA vs VET's -13.8%, ROIC 15.8% vs 3.5%
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 25.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs VET's -44.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.08 vs JPM's 0.94, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.1% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +100.1% vs KO's +17.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs VET's -13.8%, ROIC 15.8% vs 3.5% |
VET vs CVE vs JPM vs SU vs CNQ vs KO — 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 CVE vs JPM vs SU vs CNQ vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 6 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories
VET leads 1 • SU leads 1 • CVE leads 0 • JPM leads 0 • CNQ leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 154.6x VET's $1.8B. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% 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 | $49.4B | $280.3B | $52.0B | $40.7B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.2B | $12.4B | $81.4B | $21.7B | $20.5B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$814M | $4.6B | $57.0B | $6.3B | $9.7B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $301M | $4.4B | $100.9B | $7.2B | $6.2B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.9% | +19.6% | +60.0% | +55.5% | +30.8% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.2% | +14.0% | +25.9% | +27.4% | +26.8% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -44.9% | +9.4% | +20.4% | +12.2% | +23.8% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +16.6% | +8.8% | +36.0% | +13.9% | +15.2% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -16.4% | -12.8% | — | +25.1% | -14.7% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -10.9% | +78.7% | +16.0% | +30.1% | -45.3% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
VET leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 12.3x trailing earnings, CNQ trades at a 55% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs KO's 2.43x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $53.2B | $896.0B | $73.1B | $94.5B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.6B | $63.4B | $1.50T | $83.6B | $108.1B | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.68x | 18.38x | 16.00x | 17.76x | 12.27x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.20x | 6.18x | 14.40x | 6.82x | 7.47x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.90x | — | — | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.92x | 9.04x | 18.36x | 5.09x | 9.55x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.35x | 1.50x | 3.20x | 2.09x | 2.99x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.08x | 2.28x | 2.47x | 2.33x | 3.00x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.32x | 21.86x | 8.88x | 14.77x | 15.69x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
SU leads this category, winning 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 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 JPM's 2.60x. 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% | +15.2% | +15.9% | +14.0% | +24.6% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -13.8% | +7.8% | +1.3% | +7.0% | +11.8% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.5% | +7.9% | +4.5% | +20.1% | +10.0% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.3% | +8.2% | +8.9% | +19.5% | +10.3% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.59x | 0.54x | 2.60x | 0.41x | 0.44x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.3B | $14.3B | $599.0B | $14.7B | $19.0B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19M | $2.7B | $343.3B | $3.6B | $672M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.3B | $17.0B | $942.4B | $18.4B | $19.7B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.53x | 11.80x | 0.74x | 11.68x | 14.97x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — CVE and JPM each lead in 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 KO's +17.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors JPM at 33.6% vs VET's 1.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +31.7% | +62.1% | -0.5% | +37.0% | +33.3% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +45.6% | +100.1% | +21.8% | +62.0% | +42.0% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +4.0% | +79.1% | +138.2% | +123.7% | +81.8% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +41.4% | +202.8% | +118.2% | +174.3% | +181.1% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.7% | +109.7% | +465.8% | +176.8% | +286.3% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +1.3% | +21.4% | +33.6% | +30.8% | +22.1% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than JPM's 0.94 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% 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 | 0.08x | 0.94x | -0.14x | -0.15x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $14.82 | $32.07 | $337.25 | $70.29 | $51.34 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.00 | $13.47 | $262.71 | $37.23 | $29.30 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.2% | +88.2% | +95.1% | +87.6% | +88.2% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.9 | 48.8 | 59.1 | 41.0 | 44.7 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.3M | 7.9M | 7.0M | 3.4M | 7.8M | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — VET and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: VET as "Hold", CVE as "Hold", JPM as "Buy", SU as "Buy", CNQ as "Buy", KO 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 JPM's 1.86%.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $10.74 | $29.00 | $339.75 | $71.00 | $35.00 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 27 | 61 | 31 | 37 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.1% | +2.0% | +1.9% | +2.7% | +3.7% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 5 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.64 | $0.78 | $5.95 | $2.30 | $2.32 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.5% | +3.4% | +3.9% | +3.1% | +1.1% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). VET leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
VET vs CVE vs JPM vs SU vs CNQ vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is VET or CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO 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 JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) a "Buy" — based on 61 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 CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO?
On trailing P/E, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ) is the cheapest at 12.
3x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. On forward P/E, Cenovus Energy Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 81x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — VET or CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO?
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: JPM returned +465. 8% 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 CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus JPMorgan Chase & Co. 's 0. 94β — meaning JPM is approximately -571% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Suncor Energy Inc. (SU) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 41% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — VET or CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO?
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, KO leads at 3. 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 — VET or CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -37. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% 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 — KO leads at 61. 6%, 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 CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 81x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 25. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 19. 1x 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 CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 1. 9% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM).
09Is VET or CVE or JPM or SU or CNQ or KO 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%, JPM: +465. 8%), 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 CVE and JPM and SU and CNQ and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (VET (Energy) and CVE (Energy) and JPM (Financial Services) and SU (Energy) and CNQ (Energy) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: VET is a small-cap income-oriented stock; CVE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; SU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CNQ is a mid-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-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.