PAA vs PAGP vs EPD vs ET

For growth investors, Energy Transfer LP (ET) is the stronger pick with -0.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -11. 6% for Plains GP Holdings, L. P. (PAGP). Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. (PAA) offers the better valuation at 13. 1x trailing P/E (13. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. (PAA) a "Buy" — based on 42 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, Plains All American Pipeline, L.

P. (PAA) is the cheapest at 13. 1x versus Plains GP Holdings, L. P. at 17. 7x. On forward P/E, Plains GP Holdings, L. P. is actually cheaper at 12. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Plains GP Holdings, L.

P. (PAGP) delivered a total return of +189. 0%, compared to +103. 8% for Enterprise Products Partners L. P. (EPD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ET returned +140. 7% versus PAGP's +50. 0%. 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), Enterprise Products Partners L.

P. (EPD) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 00β versus Energy Transfer LP's 0. 10β — meaning ET is approximately -2563% more volatile than EPD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Plains GP Holdings, L. P. (PAGP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 81% versus 145% for Energy Transfer LP — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Energy Transfer LP (ET) is pulling ahead at -0.

1% versus -11. 6% for Plains GP Holdings, L. P. (PAGP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Plains GP Holdings, L. P. grew EPS 151. 9% year-over-year, compared to -1. 1% for Enterprise Products Partners L. P.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ET leads at -2. 8% 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.

Enterprise Products Partners L.

P. (EPD) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 1% net margin versus 0. 6% for Plains GP Holdings, L. P. — meaning it keeps 11. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EPD leads at 13. 1% versus 3. 2% for PAGP. 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, Plains GP Holdings, L.

P. (PAGP) trades at 12. 3x forward P/E versus 13. 6x for Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. — 1. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PAA: 5. 1% to $22. 83.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Plains All American Pipeline, L. P. (PAA) offers the highest yield at 7. 0%, versus 5. 7% for Enterprise Products Partners L. P. (EPD).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Enterprise Products Partners L.

P. (EPD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 00), 5. 7% yield, +117. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (EPD: +117. 7%, PAA: +52. 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.

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.