Marathon Petroleum vs Phillips 66
MPC and PSX side by side, both in petroleum refining. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MPC and PSX compare
Marathon Petroleum and Phillips 66 are about the same size, with market caps of $125B and $113B.
On earnings, Marathon Petroleum is cheaper: it trades at 15.3× trailing earnings, against 16.2× for Phillips 66.
Marathon Petroleum grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.0% versus 14.4% for Phillips 66).
Marathon Petroleum keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.6% compared with 4.7% at Phillips 66.
Both pay dividends: Marathon Petroleum yields 0.90% and Phillips 66 1.8%.
Marathon Petroleum scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 13 for Phillips 66), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | MPC | PSX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $125B | $113B |
| Share price | $444.73 | $282.83 |
| Change, 1 year | 127% | 105% |
| Change, 5 years | 576% | 264% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.51 | 0.58 |
| Employees | 19K | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 15.3× (better) | 16.2× |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 6.5× | 3.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.0× | – |
| P/FCF | 9.7× | – |
| FCF yield | 10.3% | – |
| Fair value | $413.58 | $257.88 |
| Margin of safety | −7.5% (better) | −9.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.0% (better) | 14.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.7% | 15.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 301% | 313% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 331% (better) | 320% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 12.5% | 13.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.2% | – |
| Net margin | 5.6% (better) | 4.7% |
| FCF margin | 8.4% | – |
| Return on equity | 47.9% (better) | 24.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.0% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.72 | 0.65 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.44 | – |
| Interest coverage | 8.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.25 | 1.32 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.97 (better) | 3.95 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.90% | 1.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 13.6% | 28.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | 14 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.0% (better) | 5.7% |
| Buyback yield | 3.9% (better) | 0.89% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.8% (better) | 2.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 78.0% | 79.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.30% | 0.23% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$13.9M (better) | −$63.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 1.4% |
Go deeper
- MPC stock overview
- MPC income statement
- MPC valuation and score
- PSX stock overview
- PSX income statement
- PSX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.