ET vs PAA

For growth investors, Plains All American Pipeline, L.

P. (PAA) is the stronger pick with 2. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 1% for Energy Transfer LP (ET). Energy Transfer LP (ET) offers the better valuation at 14. 7x trailing P/E (12. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Energy Transfer LP (ET) a "Buy" — based on 32 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, Energy Transfer LP (ET) is the cheapest at 14.

7x versus Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. at 30. 4x. On forward P/E, Energy Transfer LP is actually cheaper at 12. 3x.

Over the past 5 years, Plains All American Pipeline, L.

P. (PAA) delivered a total return of +195. 7%, compared to +175. 6% for Energy Transfer LP (ET). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ET returned +137. 5% versus PAA's +51. 4%. 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), Plains All American Pipeline, L.

P. (PAA) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 11β versus Energy Transfer LP's 0. 19β — meaning ET is approximately 76% more volatile than PAA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. (PAA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 61% versus 145% for Energy Transfer LP — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Plains All American Pipeline, L.

P. (PAA) is pulling ahead at 2. 8% versus -0. 1% for Energy Transfer LP (ET). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Energy Transfer LP grew EPS 5. 5% year-over-year, compared to -47. 9% for Plains All American Pipeline, L. P.. Over a 3-year CAGR, PAA leads at 6. 0% 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.

Energy Transfer LP (ET) is the more profitable company, earning 5.

9% net margin versus 1. 5% for Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. — meaning it keeps 5. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ET leads at 11. 4% versus 2. 4% for PAA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ET leads at 21. 8%, 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, Energy Transfer LP (ET) trades at 12.

3x forward P/E versus 13. 8x for Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. — 1. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PAA: 1. 9% to $22. 60.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Energy Transfer LP (ET) offers the highest yield at 6. 5%, versus 5. 7% for Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. (PAA).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Plains All American Pipeline, L.

P. (PAA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 11), 5. 7% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PAA: +51. 4%, ET: +137. 5%), 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: ET is a mid-cap deep-value stock; PAA is a mid-cap income-oriented 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.