Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Cenovus Energy Inc.
How Cenovus Energy Inc. stacks up
CVE · against 386 other Energy companies
Valuation
63/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #142 of 387 · scores higher than 63% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score39 peers with a valuation score of 60–69, including CVE · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 63?
Weighted metrics compared with all Energy companies.Mainly thanks to its free cash flow yield, earnings yield and EBITDA yield, which are stronger than most Energy peers.
- more operating profit (EBITDA) for the company's total value: stronger than 67% of peers. EBITDA yield: 16.4% vs peer median 12.1%
- higher earnings for the price paid: stronger than 69% of peers. Earnings yield: 4.5% vs peer median 5.2%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 71% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 9.4% vs peer median 6.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = CVE, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | CVE | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 384 reported | 8.5% | 5.8% | 69% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 390 reported | 16.4% | 12.4% | 67% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 249 reported | 9.4% | 6.0% | 71% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 378 reported | 39.9% | 60.0% | 27% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around CVE| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.6B MYR (≈$347M) | 100 | 80 | |
| 2 | 9.94T KRW (≈$7.2B) | 99 | 65 | |
| 2 | 2.2B MYR (≈$487M) | 99 | 60 | |
| 2 | 942M USD | 99 | 69 | |
| 2 | 517M CAD (≈$378M) | 99 | 47 | |
| 139 | 266.1B CNY (≈$37.3B) | 64 | 61 | |
| 139 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score