Phillips 66 vs ExxonMobil
PSX and XOM side by side, both in petroleum refining. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PSX and XOM compare
ExxonMobil is the larger company, worth 6.8 times as much as Phillips 66 ($770B against $113B).
On earnings, Phillips 66 is cheaper: it trades at 16.2× trailing earnings, against 24.1× for ExxonMobil.
Phillips 66 grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.4% versus 9.1% for ExxonMobil).
ExxonMobil keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.9% compared with 4.7% at Phillips 66.
Both pay dividends: Phillips 66 yields 1.8% and ExxonMobil 2.2%.
Phillips 66 scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for ExxonMobil), 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 | PSX | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $113B | $770B |
| Share price | $282.83 | $187.25 |
| Change, 1 year | 105% | 60.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 264% | 188% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 0.27 |
| Employees | 13K | 58K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.2× (better) | 24.1× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 2.1× |
| P/B | 3.6× | 3.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 25.2× |
| FCF yield | – | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $257.88 | $134.59 |
| Margin of safety | −9.7% (better) | −39.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.4% (better) | 9.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.6% (better) | 12.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 313% (better) | 5.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 320% (better) | 10.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 13.1% | – |
| Net margin | 4.7% | 8.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 8.3% |
| Return on equity | 24.0% (better) | 12.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.65 | 0.16 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.42 |
| Current ratio | 1.32 (better) | 1.13 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.95 | 4.64 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | 2.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 28.0% | 52.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.7% (better) | 2.8% |
| Buyback yield | 0.89% | 2.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.7% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.7% | 66.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.23% | 0.00% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$63.3M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.4% | 0.95% |
Go deeper
- PSX stock overview
- PSX income statement
- PSX valuation and score
- XOM stock overview
- XOM income statement
- XOM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.