SKYQ vs CLMT vs PARR vs CVI

For growth investors, Calumet, Inc.

(CLMT) is the stronger pick with -1. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -53. 9% for Sky Quarry Inc. (SKYQ). Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. (PARR) offers the better valuation at 9. 0x trailing P/E (5. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. (PARR) a "Buy" — based on 17 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, Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.

(PARR) is the cheapest at 9. 0x versus CVR Energy, Inc. at 124. 3x. On forward P/E, Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 5. 7x.

Over the past 5 years, Calumet, Inc.

(CLMT) delivered a total return of +473. 9%, compared to -88. 1% for Sky Quarry Inc. (SKYQ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CLMT returned +762. 4% versus SKYQ's -88. 1%. 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), Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.

(PARR) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 11β versus Sky Quarry Inc. 's 1. 29β — meaning SKYQ is approximately -1286% more volatile than PARR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. (PARR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 90% versus 2% for CVR Energy, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Calumet, Inc.

(CLMT) is pulling ahead at -1. 2% versus -53. 9% for Sky Quarry Inc. (SKYQ). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 1314% year-over-year, compared to -234. 8% for Sky Quarry Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, PARR leads at 0. 6% 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.

Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.

(PARR) is the more profitable company, earning 4. 9% net margin versus -63. 0% for Sky Quarry Inc. — meaning it keeps 4. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PARR leads at 7. 2% versus -32. 2% for SKYQ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PARR leads at 18. 1%, 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, Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.

(PARR) trades at 5. 7x forward P/E versus 419. 3x for Calumet, Inc. — 413. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CLMT: -3. 4% to $31. 00.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.

(PARR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 11), +267. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PARR: +267. 4%, SKYQ: -88. 1%), 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: SKYQ is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CLMT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PARR is a small-cap deep-value stock; CVI is a small-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.