YPF vs COP

For growth investors, YPF Sociedad Anónima (YPF) is the stronger pick with 48.

3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 5% for ConocoPhillips (COP). ConocoPhillips (COP) offers the better valuation at 18. 7x trailing P/E (13. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate YPF Sociedad Anónima (YPF) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 forward P/E, YPF Sociedad Anónima is actually cheaper at 0.

0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, YPF Sociedad Anónima (YPF) delivered a total return of +1047%, compared to +145.

0% for ConocoPhillips (COP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: COP returned +234. 2% versus YPF's +117. 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), ConocoPhillips (COP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

08β versus YPF Sociedad Anónima's 0. 51β — meaning YPF is approximately 545% more volatile than COP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, ConocoPhillips (COP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 36% versus 101% for YPF Sociedad Anónima — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), YPF Sociedad Anónima (YPF) is pulling ahead at 48.

3% versus 7. 5% for ConocoPhillips (COP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: ConocoPhillips grew EPS -18. 7% year-over-year, compared to -149. 6% for YPF Sociedad Anónima. Over a 3-year CAGR, YPF leads at 119. 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.

ConocoPhillips (COP) is the more profitable company, earning 13.

6% net margin versus -4. 5% for YPF Sociedad Anónima — meaning it keeps 13. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: COP leads at 19. 6% versus 8. 9% for YPF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — YPF leads at 27. 0%, 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, YPF Sociedad Anónima (YPF) trades at 0.

0x forward P/E versus 13. 8x for ConocoPhillips — 13. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for YPF: 8. 6% to $47. 00.

In this comparison, COP (2.

7% yield) pays a dividend. YPF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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

08), 2. 7% yield, +234. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (COP: +234. 2%, YPF: +117. 6%), 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: YPF is a mid-cap high-growth stock; COP is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. COP pays a dividend while YPF 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.