COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
MPC vs PSX
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MPC scored 56.9, PSX scored 54.5 — MPC leads.
Compare another set
MPC
Marathon Petroleum Corporation
56.9
$360.72 · $101.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.4
MPC leads
PSX
Phillips 66
54.5
$242.87 · $97.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestMPC12.5x
- Fastest growthMPC+15.0%
- Strongest balance sheetPSX0.63
- Highest qualityMPC79 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueMPC-60%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
MPC
stronger →← stronger
PSX
79
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
67
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
47
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
48
MPC and PSX split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MPC
PSX
$12.9bA-
FCF
$6.4bB+
+15.0%B+
Rev
+14.4%B+
1.33C
D/E
0.63B
12.5xB+
P/E
110.9xD
1.79C+
PEG
1.15B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
MPC
PSX
60% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
6% below
~-21%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-3%/yr
+182%
1-yr DCF upside
+18%
+152%
5-yr DCF upside
+6%
+114%
10-yr DCF upside
-10%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MPC
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
- Cyclical growth
PSX
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
The companies
MPCMarathon Petroleum Corporation
Why now
Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing · market cap $101.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $367.60 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 18 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $324.56 (implying -10% upside).
Moat
ROE 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 151% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $101.3b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Reserve-replacement treadmill — every barrel or ounce extracted has to be replaced through exploration or acquisition; underspending on replacement reserves shows up in production declines 2-3 years out.
PSXPhillips 66
Why now
Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing · market cap $97.4b. Trading near 52-week high of $246.95 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $221.68 (implying -9% upside).
Moat
ROE 23% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $97.4b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 110.9x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Net margin 4.7% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where MPC and PSX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.4 points in favor of MPC. The widest single difference is Quality, where MPC leads by 11.9 points.
- QualityMPC 79.1 · PSX 67.2MPC +11.9
- ValueMPC 46.6 · PSX 48.2level
- GrowthMPC 50.0 · PSX 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.