MPC vs PSX

For growth investors, Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) is the stronger pick with -4.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -7. 6% for Phillips 66 (PSX). Phillips 66 (PSX) offers the better valuation at 15. 9x trailing P/E (11. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) a "Buy" — based on 33 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Phillips 66 (PSX) is the cheapest at 15.

9x versus Marathon Petroleum Corporation at 18. 5x. On forward P/E, Marathon Petroleum Corporation is actually cheaper at 11. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) delivered a total return of +339.

3%, compared to +125. 4% for Phillips 66 (PSX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MPC returned +654. 2% versus PSX's +165. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

30β versus Phillips 66's 0. 43β — meaning PSX is approximately 43% more volatile than MPC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Phillips 66 (PSX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 76% versus 143% for Marathon Petroleum Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) is pulling ahead at -4.

4% versus -7. 6% for Phillips 66 (PSX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Phillips 66 grew EPS 116. 2% year-over-year, compared to 31. 5% for Marathon Petroleum Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, PSX leads at -8. 1% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Phillips 66 (PSX) is the more profitable company, earning 3.

3% net margin versus 3. 0% for Marathon Petroleum Corporation — meaning it keeps 3. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MPC leads at 4. 3% versus 2. 7% for PSX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MPC leads at 7. 5%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) trades at 11.

1x forward P/E versus 11. 7x for Phillips 66 — 0. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PSX: -4. 9% to $163. 38.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Phillips 66 (PSX) offers the highest yield at 2. 7%, versus 1. 5% for Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

30), 1. 5% yield, +654. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MPC: +654. 2%, PSX: +165. 7%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Energy sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: MPC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; PSX is a mid-cap deep-value stock. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.