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 6.7 times as much as Phillips 66 ($696B against $103B).
On earnings, Phillips 66 is cheaper: it trades at 8.5× trailing earnings, against 17.5× for ExxonMobil.
Phillips 66 grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (27.5% versus 19.0% for ExxonMobil).
ExxonMobil keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with 7.5% at Phillips 66.
Both pay dividends: Phillips 66 yields 1.9% and ExxonMobil 2.4%.
Phillips 66 scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 14 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 | $103B | $696B |
| Share price | $264.90 | $170.59 |
| Change, 1 year | 91.9% | 44.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 280% | 181% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.62 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 13K | 58K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.5× (better) | 17.5× |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 3.0× | 2.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 8.4× |
| P/FCF | – | 16.2× |
| FCF yield | – | 6.2% |
| Fair value | $370.58 | $134.16 |
| Margin of safety | 28.5% (better) | −27.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 27.5% (better) | 19.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.6% (better) | 12.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 736% (better) | 35.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 754% (better) | 41.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 15.1% | – |
| Net margin | 7.5% | 10.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 10.8% |
| Return on equity | 41.1% (better) | 15.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.54 | 0.13 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.26 |
| Current ratio | 1.34 (better) | 1.19 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.96 (better) | 3.70 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% | 2.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 15.9% | 42.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.7% (better) | 2.8% |
| Buyback yield | 2.9% | 2.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.8% | 5.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 81.6% | 66.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.23% | 0.00% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$55.6M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.9% | 1.1% |
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.