Is Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) a good stock to buy?
Our tested checks disagree with each other, so the answer depends on something further down the page rather than on any one measure.
What each rating means, in numbers
Cash it pays you — Low. For every $100 of share price, the business threw off about $2.7 of spare cash a year, averaged over the last three years. Higher is better: the cheap fifth on this measure ran about 7.7 points a year ahead of the dear fifth, 2011 to 2025.
Business quality — Strong. Passes 6 of the 8 health checks we can measure — things like making a profit, turning it into cash, and not piling on debt. Across 131,000 company-quarters the weakest scorers went on to fail at 5.4% against 1.4% for the strongest, in every era and all twelve sectors.
How wild is the price? — Average. The share price swings about 39% in a typical year, which puts it in the middling. Out of every 100 companies that swung like this, about 1.5 went bankrupt within the year. Across the three periods we tested that ran from 0.2% to 3.0%.
What "tested" means here, and why there is no score out of 100
Tested means the read was measured against what actually happened afterwards, on a history that keeps the companies that were later delisted, using only figures that had been filed on the day they are used. Survival was ranked on companies that really did fail. What an owner keeps was tested across the universe from 2011 to 2025.
The full record of everything we have tested is on the research pages.
Which benchmark. Over the period we tested, the median listed company returned +5.8% a year while the S&P 500 returned about +13.9% — the index is weighted by size and was carried by a handful of enormous winners. So "beats the index" and "beats the other companies you could have bought" are different questions. Where a read says it picks better companies, it means the second one. None of these gets you an index fund's return, and we would rather say that than imply otherwise.
The quality read is the strongest thing we have tested: 131,000 company-quarters across 5,300 companies, where the weakest scorers went on to fail at 5.4% against 1.4% for the strongest, holding in every era and all twelve sectors. It still says less likely to break, not likely to beat the market — every band in that study lost to the index at the median, because the median listed company does.
Each read is shown on its own rather than merged into a single score, so you can see which part is strong and which is weak instead of taking an average on trust.
▾ What goes into the smart-money reading
Contributions (weight × component score) sum to the total. This near-term score now includes fundamental health (leverage, FCF trend, DCF applicability). It excludes the Altman Z score, whose retained-earnings input this filer does not report separately. See the Financial Health section for the full balance-sheet read.
Chance the S&P 500 falls 10% or more in the next three months.
Counted from every day since 2006. Says nothing about CVE — see the board for how it is measured.
📍 Where to start on this page, and what to look at first
How to read CVE (cyclical commodity producer)
A miner or energy producer earns whatever the commodity price is, so a single DCF swings with the cycle. Judge it against peers and where you think the commodity cycle is heading.
-
1
EV/Sales peer comparison ↓
How the price compares to similar producers is more meaningful than a through-cycle DCF.
-
2
Interactive calculator (test cycle assumptions) ↓
Flex the growth/discount inputs to see how sensitive the value is to where we are in the cycle.
Is Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) overvalued?
Macro: Neutral / mid-cycleHard to say from one number: for a commodity producer our value is a mid-cycle reference, and the price sits 127% above it.
CVE trades at $31.86 vs an estimated intrinsic value of $14.04 — a +126.9% above our mid-cycle reference value. Low confidence: commodity prices and normalized margins dominate this result. CVE is a cyclical commodity producer (Oil & Gas Extraction), so a single growth-DCF is the wrong tool — its profits rise and fall with the commodity price. We value it off normalized, mid-cycle cash flow, which is why the modeled growth reads near 0%: we deliberately don't extrapolate growth from a possibly-elevated base. A premium here usually just means today's price sits above mid-cycle worth — common when the commodity is near a cycle high (near a trough the same model would read "cheap"). On its own that's not a sell signal — judge it against its peers and where you think the cycle is heading.
Not investment advice. The model can be wrong. Verify the assumptions in the sections below and consider consulting a licensed advisor for significant decisions.
What return would CVE pay as a bond?
Treat the share as a bond: the "coupon" is the cash an owner could take out this year, and unlike a real bond that coupon can grow. Fix today's price and a conservative growth path, and the only unknown left is the return. That number is comparable across every kind of company — which is the point.
Plainly: at $31.86, CVE pays a 2.7% owner-earnings coupon today. If that coupon grows 2.5% a year for five years and then settles toward 2.5%, and a buyer in year 10 pays 15× that year's owner earnings, the whole trade returns about -2.3% a year — 7.5 points less than a Treasury with none of the business risk. By year 5 the coupon on today's price would be 3.0% (the "yield on cost" Buffett talks about). Our DCF demanded 11.0% for a business this risky; this read falls short of that bar, which is the same conclusion the verdict above reaches by a different route.
Who expects what from CVE
The price implies one growth rate and our model produces another — and both have been scored against what actually happened. Beside them: how the analysts covering this company rate it, and how accurate their earnings estimates have proved.
What each number is, and which has been tested
The market — 17.7% over 5 years. The growth implied by today's price. Tested: median miss of 8.3 points a year against realised five-year growth.
Us — 2.5% over 5 years. Tested across 3,279 past filings: a median miss of 4.8 points a year against realised five-year growth, better than both the market and a naive carry-forward.
Analysts (their record here) — Usually wrong. Over the last 4 quarters, the consensus earnings estimate for this company missed by a median of 28.1% either way, and ran too LOW, so the company kept beating on average (3 beats, 1 misses). This is NEXT-QUARTER earnings, which companies guide analysts toward - they are supposed to be good at it. It says nothing about long-run growth, which nobody guides.
Analyst data from Finnhub, snapshotted recently. Their forward estimates are behind a paywall we have not bought, so what is shown is their rating and their measured track record on this company — not their forecast. Nothing here is used anywhere in our valuation: feeding an unscored forecast into the model would undo the one growth result we have actually tested.
What cash-flow improvement must the market believe? Reverse DCF — Instead of asking "what is this stock worth?", asks "what growth rate is the current market price already assuming?"
Why it matters: It crystallizes the bull thesis as a single number you can argue with. If the market expects 40% growth for 10 years and you do not believe that, the stock is overvalued.
Reference: 10–15% = sustainable for strong companies · 20–25% = exceptional · 30%+ = historically very rare
Reverse DCF treats today's price as correct and solves for the cash-flow path that justifies it. For a cyclical, read the result as the annual improvement in through-cycle free cash flow the price requires — which could come from higher realized commodity prices, margin recovery, lower input costs, more volume, or reduced capex, not just organic growth. The starting base is our normalized mid-cycle median, not last year's number.
Why it matters: A company can show big profits on paper while burning through cash. FCF is what actually fills the bank account.
Reference: Healthy mature businesses convert 8–15% of revenue into FCF · Growth companies often negative
Full explanation → must improve by:
▾ Exactly how this 5-year figure is computed
Forecast length: 5 years at the solved rate, then a linear fade to terminal growth over years 6-10 — the same shape the DCF above uses
Terminal growth after the fade: 2.0%
Discount rate: 11.0% (the rate the model used)
Price used: $31.86 — the live price shown on this page (not frozen)
Method: solve for the constant annual growth rate that makes the discounted 10-year FCF stream + terminal value equal today's price.
An above-average expectation for five years. Achievable for a genuinely strong business that executes well.
For reference: Demanding — relatively few large companies sustain this pace of cash-flow growth for a full decade.
▾ How we computed this · Reality check thresholds · Assumptions
- Starting FCF/share: $1.22 (mid-cycle estimate (median operating cash flow less estimated maintenance capex and stock compensation — by design NOT the table's FCF, which deducts every year's full capex))
- Discount RateDiscount Rate — The annual return you demand for taking single-stock risk instead of buying a safe Treasury or index fund.
Why it matters: Higher discount rate = stricter valuation (a stock has to produce more cash to be worth holding). Lower = more generous.
Reference: 8–12% is standard · 9–10% matches S&P 500 historical return · Below 7% is illogical for single-stock risk
Full explanation →: 11.0% — standard 8-12%; 9-10% matches S&P 500 historical return - Terminal Growth RateTerminal Growth Rate — The growth rate we assume the company holds forever, after the explicit 10-year forecast period ends.
Why it matters: It anchors the long-tail value. Cannot mathematically exceed long-term GDP growth or the company eventually becomes larger than the global economy.
Reference: 2–3% (matches long-term US GDP growth) · Above 4% is mathematically problematic
Full explanation →: 2.0% — matches long-term GDP growth - Forecast horizon: 10 years explicit + terminal perpetuity
| ≤ 0% | Priced for decline — likely undervalued OR dying business |
| 5-12% | Reasonable; sustainable for quality businesses |
| 12-18% | Demanding — strong execution required |
| 18-25% | Exceptional — few companies sustain for a decade |
| 25-35% | Heroic — historically very rare |
| 35%+ | Borderline impossible at scale |
Sustaining 30%+ cash-flow growth for a full decade at scale is exceedingly rare — the bar is brutally high.
Use the interactive calculator below to change the discount rate, growth and terminal-growth assumptions and watch the value move.
What this rating means
What the rating says — Above every method. The current price sits ABOVE the high end of every method. The market is paying a premium to all of these lenses — it expects materially better growth or margins than the models assume.
What it does not say — Not a forecast. This shows where today's price sits against several different ways of valuing the business. Where the methods disagree, the spread itself is the useful part - it tells you how much the answer depends on which one you trust.
Football field: where does the price sit?
Both bars below come from our own cash-flow model — one tries a range of growth rates, one shows our three scenarios. A third bar comparing CVE with similar companies appears only when there are enough close peers to trust it, and there aren't here. So this shows how much the answer depends on growth, not a set of independent checks.
Industry multiples sourced from: industry similar to Oil & Gas. See the Peer Basket section below for the peer comparison and its limited-comparables caveat.
How does CVE stack up against its closest peers?
We take the 8 same- or closely-related-industry companies closest in size to CVE and check what investors are paying for each dollar of their revenue (or profits). If CVE is much more expensive on the same yardstick, that's a red flag — unless you have a specific reason it deserves a premium. For a leveraged business, EV/EBIT and FCF yield (both in the table) are usually more reliable than EV/Sales, because revenue multiples ignore differences in margins and debt.
▾ What's "EV / Sales" in plain English?
EV (Enterprise Value) = market cap + total debt − cash. It's "what you'd pay to buy the entire company outright" — you pay the market cap to shareholders and take over their debt, but you keep their cash. EV is fairer than market cap alone because it includes the debt the new owner inherits.
EV / Sales = EV ÷ annual revenue. So "2.5×" means investors pay $2.50 of enterprise value per $1 of yearly sales. Higher = market is paying more per dollar of sales (usually because they expect future growth or fat margins).
p25 / median / p75 are the 25th, 50th (middle), and 75th percentile of the peers' multiples. Half the peers fall between p25 and p75. The median (p50) is the typical peer — that's the benchmark we compare to.
| EV / SalesEV / Sales — For every $1 of yearly revenue, this is how many dollars investors pay to own the whole business (including debt). Why it matters: Works for pre-profit growth companies where P/E and FCF don't apply. The most apples-to-apples cross-company multiple because it ignores accounting choices. Reference: 1–3x for mature companies · 4–10x for software/SaaS · 10–20x for hypergrowth · >20x is rare and demanding Full explanation → |
1.3x / 2.4x / 4.2x |
| EV / EBITEV / EBITDA — Enterprise value divided by earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization. Why it matters: A classic "what would a private buyer pay" multiple — used in M&A. Strips out tax and capital-structure noise. Reference: 8–12x for mature businesses · 15–25x for growth · Below 5x often signals distress Full explanation → |
14.0x / 14.8x / 19.1x |
Bold middle number = median peer. Half the peers trade above it, half below. Computed over 8 same-industry peers; implausible multiples excluded.
⚠️ Important caveat: peer multiples only work if the peers are genuinely comparable. Always check the peer list below — if the auto-picker grabbed micro-caps or unrelated businesses, the comparison is noise. A medical-device giant priced against tiny biotech startups won't produce a useful signal.
▾ View peer list (8)
| Ticker | Company | Industry | Mcap | EV/Sales | EV/GP | EV/EBIT | FCF Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WDS | WOODSIDE ENERGY GROUP LTD | Oil & Gas Extraction | $42.4B | 4.2x | 12.0x | 14.0x | 5.7% |
| E | ENI SPA | Oil & Gas Extraction | $86.3B | 1.2x | — | 20.4x | 7.7% |
| CNQ | CANADIAN NATURAL RESOURCES Ltd | Oil & Gas Extraction | $99.2B | 4.0x | — | — | 6.6% |
| EC | ECOPETROL S.A. | Oil & Gas Extraction | $33.5B | — | — | — | — |
| PBR | PETROBRAS - PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA | Oil & Gas Extraction | $167.1B | 2.1x | 4.1x | 7.0x | 17.0% |
| PR | Permian Resources Corp | Oil & Gas Extraction | $18.2B | 4.3x | — | 14.8x | 10.7% |
| TTE | TotalEnergies SE | Oil & Gas Extraction | $202.3B | 1.3x | — | — | 7.1% |
| OVV | Ovintiv Inc. | Oil & Gas Extraction | $16.5B | 2.4x | — | 19.1x | 9.7% |
Quality & solvency checks
Cheap stocks can be cheap for a reason. These screens warn when a low valuation comes paired with structural fragility.
What these health ratings mean, in numbers
Business quality — Strong. Passes 6 of the 8 health checks we can measure — making a profit, turning it into cash, not piling on debt, not issuing shares. Across 131,000 company-quarters the weakest scorers went on to fail at 5.4% within a year against 1.4% for the strongest, and that held in every era and all twelve sectors. It says "less likely to break", not "likely to beat the market".
Why it matters: Cheap-looking stocks (low P/E or P/B) often have low Z-scores because the market knows the company is dying. Z-score warns you before you fall into a value trap.
Reference: > 3.0 = safe zone · 1.81–3.0 = grey zone · < 1.81 = distress zone
Full explanation →
We can't produce a trustworthy Altman Z here: retained earnings weren't separately reported in our data, so a core input would have to be fabricated. Rather than show a categorical "distress" verdict from an invented number, we mark it unavailable. Judge financial health from the leverage, cash position, and the measurable Piotroski checks instead.
▾ The checks — what passed, what didn't (and what we couldn't measure)
-
✓ Positive net incomeNet income $2,811.6M in FY2025.
-
✓ Positive operating cash flowOperating cash flow $5,886.6M (was $6,745.6M the prior year).
-
✓ Cash flow backs up reported profitOperating cash flow $5,886.6M vs net income $2,811.6M.
-
✓ Return on assets improvingReturn on assets 6.1% vs 5.8% a year ago.
-
✗ Debt load (vs assets)Long-term debt is 17.4% of assets vs 13.0% a year ago ($8,057.3M of $46,322.4M assets).Why this matters: Rising debt relative to assets means more risk and more cash going to interest instead of shareholders. Falling debt is a sign of strengthening.
-
✓ Short-term liquidity (current ratio)Current ratio 1.57x vs 1.42x a year ago.
-
✓ Share count (dilution)Share count declined 2.2% (1,850.2M → 1,809.9M year-over-year), so the no-dilution check passed. (One-year change; the multi-year buyback pace can differ.)
-
· Pricing power (gross margin) (n/a — data not reported; not scored)
-
✗ Sales per asset (asset turnover)Asset turnover 0.77x vs 1.01x a year ago.Why this matters: Asset turnover measures how much revenue each dollar of assets generates. Rising = more productive use of the asset base.
Missing data is never counted as a pass or a fail — it's shown as n/a and excluded from the denominator. Each check compares the company against its own prior year.
What if you assume different inputs?
Here's where we land — and what happens if you change the assumptions. Drag the sliders to set your own Discount RateDiscount Rate — The annual return you demand for taking single-stock risk instead of buying a safe Treasury or index fund.
Why it matters: Higher discount rate = stricter valuation (a stock has to produce more cash to be worth holding). Lower = more generous.
Reference: 8–12% is standard · 9–10% matches S&P 500 historical return · Below 7% is illogical for single-stock risk
Full explanation → (the annual return you demand for single-stock risk) and terminal growth; the value updates live so you can see whether the stock looks cheaper or richer. The discount rate starts at 11.0%, the figure our model used for CVE. Open Advanced to also change beta, growth and the rate path.
Note: the calculator opens at our published value of $14.04 — it is initialised to the same scenario-weighted result, so the two match exactly on load. The moment you move a slider, the value below becomes a single-path what-if at your assumptions (not the three-scenario weighting), which is why it can differ from the headline once you've touched it.
8.5% — beta-based (CAPM), from this stock's BetaBeta — How much the stock moves when the overall market moves. 1.0 = moves with the market; 1.5 = moves 50% more than the market.
Why it matters: Higher beta = more volatile = should demand higher discount rate. Low beta stocks (utilities, consumer staples) move less.
Reference: Most stocks 0.5–1.5 · Defensives ~0.3 · High-vol tech ~1.5–2.0
Full explanation → of 0.56. The safe Treasury rate plus a premium scaled by how much more (or less) volatile the stock is than the market.
11.0% — sector/quality tier. A simpler hurdle set by industry and business durability: lower for stable, wide-moat companies; higher for speculative or micro-caps.
The headline value and this calculator start at 11.0% — the more conservative sector/quality rate (we use the more conservative sector/quality rate when model applicability is limited or the balance sheet is stretched). Drag the slider to the other rate to see the full range.
+126.9%
At the default assumptions the flat path lands near our published value of $14.04. Move any slider to recompute it with your own.
Move any slider above to recompute this against your own assumptions.
⚙ Advanced — tinker with every input (beta, growth, rate path, margin → full intrinsic value)
Cenovus Energy Inc. is deeply overvalued, with the price 126.9% above intrinsic valueIntrinsic Value — Our DCF model's estimate of what each share is mathematically worth based on projected cash flows.
Why it matters: Compare to current price. Below IV = potentially undervalued. Above IV = priced for growth that must actually happen.
Reference: Model-derived; quality depends on data and assumptions.
Full explanation → (a 126.9% premium). The market appears to be paying up for significant future growth, implying a 17.7% annual per-share cash flow growth rate, despite the company's revenue being roughly flat over the last four years. The biggest risk to our model's base assumptions proving too high is that the implied 17.7% annual per-share cash-flow growth rate does not materialize, particularly given the company's roughly flat revenue trend.
As of 17 days ago
Anatomy of a share
What you're buying per share. Bars are at the same scale so you can see the relative size of revenue, costs, cash flow, and debt — not just read them in a table.
What's free cash flow / what do these mean?
Revenue per share — how much the business earns from customers, divided by the number of shares outstanding. Top of the income statement.
Earnings per share — profit left after operating costs, interest, and taxes, per share. Two versions appear on this page and are not interchangeable: GAAP diluted EPS uses the company's weighted-average diluted share count during the reporting period (this is the "earnings" in "price-to-earnings"); net income per current share divides annual net income by today's share count. They differ whenever the share count has changed.
Owner-earnings free cash flow per share — the cash the business produces for shareholders. Savng's owner-earnings FCF subtracts capital expenditures and stock-based compensation from operating cash flow (SBC is a real dilution cost even though it's non-cash). This is deliberately more conservative than "standard" FCF, which subtracts only capital expenditures — so our figure is lower than the headline FCF you'll see elsewhere. FCF funds dividends, buybacks, debt repayment, and acquisitions; a company can report positive earnings yet negative FCF.
Debt per share — total interest-bearing borrowings divided by shares. High debt-per-share next to thin FCF-per-share is a fragility signal.
What you actually need to decide
Every stock price is a disagreement. Here's the single thing that must go right for the bulls, the single thing that breaks the thesis, and the concrete signposts to watch so you can update your view as real results arrive.
- Quarterly operating cash flow trends
- Updates on production volumes and capital expenditures
- Changes in long-term debt levels
The trend, in plain numbers (FY2024 → FY2025, latest reported)
Straight from the financial statements — no model, no opinion. For a small or unprofitable company, the direction of these numbers usually tells you more than any single valuation.
- Net income grew +23% to $2.81B.
- Revenue fell -10% to $35.55B.
- Free cash flow fell to $257.6M.
Management & Leadership
Cenovus Energy Inc. is led by CEO Jon McKenzie. Other key executives include Drew MacIntyre as Chief Financial Officer and Norrie Ramsay as Chief Operating Officer. These names are from public sources rather than the latest filing.
What They Make
Cenovus Energy Inc. is an integrated energy company primarily engaged in the exploration, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas. Their paying customers are refiners, marketers, and other energy companies who purchase their produced hydrocarbons.
End Markets
Revenue Drivers
Why Is It Priced Like This?
Why Customers Pay
The market prices CVE at a premium of +126.9% to the model's intrinsic valueIntrinsic Value — Our DCF model's estimate of what each share is mathematically worth based on projected cash flows.
Why it matters: Compare to current price. Below IV = potentially undervalued. Above IV = priced for growth that must actually happen.
Reference: Model-derived; quality depends on data and assumptions.
Full explanation →, implying a significant 17.7% annual per-share cash-flow growth. This optimism is not clearly supported by health signals, as revenue has been roughly flat (-1%/yr over 4yr) and the franchise/durability score is low at 1/5. The market appears to be anticipating a substantial acceleration in future performance beyond historical trends.
Three Scenarios, Weighted
| Scenario | IV | Upside from today's price | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $12.15 | -61.9% | 40% |
| Base | $14.27 | -55.2% | 35% |
| Optimistic | $16.75 | -47.4% | 25% |
| Weighted | $14.04 | -55.9% | 100% |
Reading the last column: it is the move from today's price to each value (IV ÷ price − 1). The headline "premium/discount to model IV" measures the same gap from the value's side (price ÷ IV − 1), so the two percentages differ in size and sign by construction — e.g. a price 8% above value is a value 7.4% below price.
Business Model & Valuation
How They Make Money
The company's free cash flowFree Cash Flow (FCF) — Operating cash flow minus capital spending: cash left after a company covers operating costs, taxes and interest and reinvests in the business — but BEFORE repaying debt principal or paying dividends. The cash actually available to investors.
Why it matters: A company can show big profits on paper while burning through cash. FCF is what actually fills the bank account.
Reference: Healthy mature businesses convert 8–15% of revenue into FCF · Growth companies often negative
Full explanation → after stock compensation was $257.6 million in the latest fiscal year, and it has reduced long-term debt from $9.7B to $8.1 billion.
Normalized FCF Medium
Cyclical/commodity sector (Oil & Gas Extraction): normalized FCF uses 5-year median to smooth peak/trough distortions.
Show advanced inputs
| Revenue Growth | -1.0% |
| Eps Growth | 61.2% |
| Historical Fcf Growth | -49.1% |
| Sector Default | 4.0% |
| Sector Default Source | Energy sector default |
| Best Estimate | 2.5% |
| Method | blend(30% revenue_cagr, 70% sector) |
| Growth Basis | total |
What this model does NOT do: this is a consolidated owner-earnings cash-flow model. Standalone segment assumptions: none. It does not project production volumes, realized commodity prices and unit cash costs independently; their combined effect is embedded in the historical revenue and cash-flow trend the model extrapolates. The calculator above can only approximate a segment's impact through the single consolidated growth rate — it cannot model any one line separately. For a true segment-level view, build a separate model from the company's segment disclosures.
Maturity & Competitive Position
Moat Signals
Revenue has been roughly flat over the last four years, declining from $35.6 billion to $35.6 billion.
Geography & Markets
Geographic Risks
Market Signals
These are timing signals, not value signals — they describe the stock's recent price behavior, not what the business is worth. Use them for the "the thesis looks good, but is now the moment?" question. Each tile below explains what it's saying.
Why it matters: Short-term contrarian indicator. Extreme readings often precede mean reversion, though not always.
Reference: 30–70 normal · >70 overbought · <30 oversold
Full explanation → (14)45.1NeutralMomentum is balanced — neither overbought nor oversold.
Why it matters: When the fast line crosses above the slow line, short-term momentum is turning up; below, turning down. A timing cue, not a value signal.
Reference: Line above signal = bullish momentum · below = bearish
Full explanation →BearishLine below signalThe fast trend is below the slow trend — short-term momentum is currently downward.
Technicals describe price, not the business. A great company can have a "bearish" tape (a buying chance) and a weak one a "bullish" tape (a trap). Pair these with the valuation and health sections above.
QUALITY
Data Quality & Risk Flags (4 notes — click to expand/collapse)
Guardrail Notes (3)
- Cyclical sector: using normalized cash flow (median OCF minus estimated maintenance capex).
- Median OCF: $5.89B, est. maintenance capex: $3.53B, normalized SBC: $126.85M, normalized owner-earnings FCF: $2.23B.
- Terminal growth set to 2% — the lowest of the applicable caps (binding: 80% of near-term growth (2.5%)). We use one effective terminal rate everywhere on the page.
FINANCIALS
Financial Statements (5-year tables — click to expand)
From Cenovus Energy Inc.'s SEC filings (EDGAR).
Income (5yr)
| Year | Revenue | Net Income | EPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 35.6B | 2.8B | $1.54 |
| 2024 | 39.6B | 2.3B | $1.22 |
| 2023 | 38.7B | 3.0B | $1.55 |
| 2022 | 51.4B | 5.0B | $2.46 |
| 2021 | 37.0B | 468.3M | $0.22 |
Cash Flow (5yr)
CapEx is approximated. This filer reports capital expenditure under a company-specific tag our parser cannot read, so the CapEx column uses total investing outflow instead. That includes acquisitions and investment purchases, so the free cash flow shown is a conservative (lower-bound) figure in years with large deals.
| Year | Operating CF | Investing outflow (capex proxy) | − SBC | Free Cash Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 5.9B | 5.5B | 136.6M | 257.6M |
| 2024 | 6.7B | 3.7B | 92.0M | 2.9B |
| 2023 | 5.5B | 3.9B | 71.9M | 1.5B |
| 2022 | 8.8B | 1.8B | 286.8M | 6.7B |
| 2021 | 4.7B | 751.5M | 126.9M | 3.8B |
How we define FCF: operating cash flow − capital expenditure − stock-based compensation (owner-earnings basis — SBC is a real cost to shareholders even though it's non-cash). Latest year: 5.9B − 5.5B − 136.6M (stock-based comp) = 257.6M. This is the same owner-earnings FCF definition the valuation model uses, though the DCF's starting value is a mid-cycle estimate (median operating cash flow less estimated maintenance capex and stock compensation — by design NOT the table's FCF, which deducts every year's full capex), not this single year.
Balance Sheet
| Total Assets | 46.3B |
| Total Liabilities | 23.2B |
| Equity | 23.1B |
| Total Debt | 8.1B |
Similar companies worth a look
Same sector and industry, similar fundamentals shape. Verify everything yourself — this list is computed mechanically and does not reflect our judgment about whether any of these are a good investment.
The questions people ask about CVE
Is Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) a good stock to buy?
Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) looks expensive against its own cash flows: the price is about 127% above our $14.04 estimate. Whether it is a good buy depends on whether the company can grow faster than that price assumes, on its financial health, and on what insiders are doing. All three are on this page. This is educational research from SEC filings, not investment advice.
Is Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) overvalued?
Yes, by our measure. Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) trades at $31.86, about 127% above our estimate of $14.04 for what the business is worth. This is educational research from SEC filings, not investment advice.
What is CVE's intrinsic value?
Our model estimates CVE is worth about $14.04 per share, built from the cash the business is expected to generate, taken from its SEC filings. The market price is $31.86.
What growth is priced into CVE?
Working backwards from today's price, the market expects CVE's cash flow per share to grow by roughly 17.7% a year over the next five years. Compare that with the company's actual record on this page.
Where do these numbers come from?
From Cenovus Energy Inc.'s own SEC filings (10-K and 10-Q), Form 4 insider filings and daily market prices. Every figure on the page links to how it was calculated, and the model's weak spots are listed next to its results.