PSX vs XOM vs CVX vs VLO

For growth investors, Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is the stronger pick with -4.

5% 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 Phillips 66 (PSX) a "Buy" — based on 35 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 Valero Energy Corporation at 31. 3x. On forward P/E, Valero Energy Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Valero Energy Corporation (VLO) delivered a total return of +220.

2%, compared to +98. 1% for Chevron Corporation (CVX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: VLO returned +394. 8% versus XOM's +107. 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), Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

15β versus Phillips 66's 0. 43β — meaning PSX is approximately -395% 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 76% for Phillips 66 — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is pulling ahead at -4.

5% 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. 8% for Chevron 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 1. 9% for Valero Energy Corporation — 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. 7% for PSX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CVX leads at 30. 4%, 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 10.

0x forward P/E versus 15. 2x for Chevron Corporation — 5. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for XOM: 8. 0% to $160. 43.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Chevron Corporation (CVX) offers the highest yield at 3. 7%, versus 1. 9% for Valero Energy Corporation (VLO).

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.

15), 2. 7% yield, +107. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (XOM: +107. 4%, 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: PSX is a mid-cap deep-value stock; XOM is a large-cap quality compounder stock; CVX is a large-cap income-oriented stock; VLO is a mid-cap quality compounder 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.