CVI vs XOM vs MPC vs PSX vs VLO

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. 2x 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 CVR Energy, Inc. at 124. 3x. On forward P/E, Valero Energy Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Marathon Petroleum Corporation (MPC) delivered a total return of +335.

2%, compared to +125. 2% for Phillips 66 (PSX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MPC returned +671. 7% versus XOM's +102. 6%. 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), Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

20β versus Phillips 66's 0. 35β — meaning PSX is approximately -279% more volatile than XOM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 2% for CVR Energy, Inc. — 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: CVR Energy, Inc. grew EPS 287. 4% year-over-year, compared to -14. 5% for Exxon Mobil Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, XOM leads at -6. 7% 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.

Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is the more profitable company, earning 8.

9% net margin versus 0. 4% for CVR Energy, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: XOM leads at 10. 5% versus 2. 3% for CVI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — XOM leads at 21. 7%, 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, Valero Energy Corporation (VLO) trades at 9.

3x forward P/E versus 36. 3x for CVR Energy, Inc. — 27. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for XOM: 11. 6% to $161. 08.

In this comparison, XOM (2.

8% yield), PSX (2. 7% yield), VLO (1. 9% yield), MPC (1. 5% yield) pay a dividend. CVI does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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

20), 2. 8% yield, +102. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (XOM: +102. 6%, CVI: +259. 4%), 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: CVI is a small-cap quality compounder stock; XOM is a large-cap quality compounder stock; MPC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; PSX is a mid-cap deep-value stock; VLO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. XOM, MPC, PSX, VLO pay a dividend while CVI does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.