Murphy USA Inc.

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, AMZN has a market cap of 2.5T. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while AMZN trades at $231.44.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas AMZN's P/E ratio is 37.76. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to AMZN's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to AMZN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check AMZN's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BABA has a market cap of 286.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BABA trades at $120.03.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BABA's P/E ratio is 13.23. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BABA's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to BABA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BABA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, PDD has a market cap of 164.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while PDD trades at $118.45.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas PDD's P/E ratio is 12.70. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to PDD's ROE of +0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to PDD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check PDD's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, MELI has a market cap of 119.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while MELI trades at $2,362.56.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas MELI's P/E ratio is 58.10. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to MELI's ROE of +0.48%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to MELI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check MELI's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, SE has a market cap of 93.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while SE trades at $157.71.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas SE's P/E ratio is 110.31. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SE's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SE's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ORLY has a market cap of 83.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ORLY trades at $97.66.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ORLY's P/E ratio is 34.88. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ORLY's ROE of -1.80%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ORLY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ORLY's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CVNA has a market cap of 71.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CVNA trades at $332.12.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CVNA's P/E ratio is 115.68. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CVNA's ROE of +0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CVNA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CVNA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, AZO has a market cap of 63.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while AZO trades at $3,820.91.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas AZO's P/E ratio is 25.90. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to AZO's ROE of -0.57%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to AZO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check AZO's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CPNG has a market cap of 54.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CPNG trades at $30.25.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CPNG's P/E ratio is 216.11. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CPNG's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to CPNG. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CPNG's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, JD has a market cap of 48.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while JD trades at $33.18.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas JD's P/E ratio is 8.07. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to JD's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to JD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check JD's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, EBAY has a market cap of 37.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while EBAY trades at $81.43.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas EBAY's P/E ratio is 19.57. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to EBAY's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EBAY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EBAY's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, TSCO has a market cap of 31.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while TSCO trades at $59.33.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas TSCO's P/E ratio is 29.23. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to TSCO's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to TSCO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TSCO's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ULTA has a market cap of 23.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ULTA trades at $514.95.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ULTA's P/E ratio is 20.15. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ULTA's ROE of +0.50%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ULTA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ULTA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, WSM has a market cap of 22.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while WSM trades at $181.71.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas WSM's P/E ratio is 21.01. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WSM's ROE of +0.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to WSM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check WSM's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CASY has a market cap of 19.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CASY trades at $527.51.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CASY's P/E ratio is 36.08. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CASY's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to CASY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CASY's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, GPC has a market cap of 18.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while GPC trades at $133.70.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas GPC's P/E ratio is 23.05. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GPC's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to GPC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check GPC's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, DKS has a market cap of 17.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while DKS trades at $217.19.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas DKS's P/E ratio is 15.53. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to DKS's ROE of +0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DKS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DKS's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CHWY has a market cap of 15.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CHWY trades at $36.31.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CHWY's P/E ratio is 39.91. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CHWY's ROE of +1.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CHWY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CHWY's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BBY has a market cap of 14.2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BBY trades at $67.44.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BBY's P/E ratio is 16.44. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBY's ROE of +0.30%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBY's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CART has a market cap of 12.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CART trades at $48.41.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CART's P/E ratio is 31.85. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CART's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CART. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CART's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, GME has a market cap of 10.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while GME trades at $23.33.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas GME's P/E ratio is 44.05. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GME's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to GME. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check GME's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, W has a market cap of 8.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while W trades at $65.37.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas W's P/E ratio is -23.02. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to W's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to W. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check W's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, VIPS has a market cap of 8.2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while VIPS trades at $15.98.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas VIPS's P/E ratio is 8.24. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to VIPS's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to VIPS. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check VIPS's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, FIVE has a market cap of 7.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while FIVE trades at $138.67.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas FIVE's P/E ratio is 29.01. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to FIVE's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to FIVE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check FIVE's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BBWI has a market cap of 6.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BBWI trades at $31.56.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BBWI's P/E ratio is 8.48. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBWI's ROE of -0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBWI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBWI's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ETSY has a market cap of 6.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ETSY trades at $62.46.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ETSY's P/E ratio is 45.26. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ETSY's ROE of -0.26%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ETSY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ETSY's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, GLBE has a market cap of 5.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while GLBE trades at $34.69.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas GLBE's P/E ratio is -93.76. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GLBE's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to GLBE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check GLBE's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, RH has a market cap of 4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while RH trades at $213.80.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas RH's P/E ratio is 50.81. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to RH's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to RH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check RH's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ASO has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ASO trades at $55.48.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ASO's P/E ratio is 10.27. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ASO's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ASO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ASO's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, AAP has a market cap of 3.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while AAP trades at $58.68.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas AAP's P/E ratio is -6.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to AAP's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to AAP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check AAP's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, OZON has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while OZON trades at $11.60.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas OZON's P/E ratio is -2.61. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to OZON's ROE of +0.61%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to OZON. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check OZON's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, EYE has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while EYE trades at $25.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas EYE's P/E ratio is -78.19. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to EYE's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EYE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EYE's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, SVV has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while SVV trades at $10.07.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas SVV's P/E ratio is 71.96. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SVV's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SVV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SVV's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, RVLV has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while RVLV trades at $21.78.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas RVLV's P/E ratio is 31.10. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to RVLV's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to RVLV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check RVLV's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, MNSO has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while MNSO trades at $19.17.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas MNSO's P/E ratio is 17.44. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to MNSO's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to MNSO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check MNSO's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, WINA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while WINA trades at $383.20.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas WINA's P/E ratio is 34.15. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WINA's ROE of -0.98%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to WINA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check WINA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, TA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while TA trades at $86.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas TA's P/E ratio is 9.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to TA's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to TA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, EVGOW has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while EVGOW trades at $0.20.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas EVGOW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to EVGOW's ROE of +0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EVGOW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EVGOW's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, RERE has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while RERE trades at $3.40.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas RERE's P/E ratio is 37.83. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to RERE's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to RERE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check RERE's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, EVGO has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while EVGO trades at $3.60.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas EVGO's P/E ratio is -8.78. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to EVGO's ROE of +0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EVGO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EVGO's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, SBH has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while SBH trades at $10.37.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas SBH's P/E ratio is 5.89. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SBH's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SBH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SBH's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, OLPX has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while OLPX trades at $1.51.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas OLPX's P/E ratio is 75.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to OLPX's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to OLPX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check OLPX's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, TANNI has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while TANNI trades at $25.29.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas TANNI's P/E ratio is 35.27. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to TANNI's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to TANNI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TANNI's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, WOOF has a market cap of 937.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while WOOF trades at $3.36.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas WOOF's P/E ratio is -14.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WOOF's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to WOOF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check WOOF's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, TDUP has a market cap of 909.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while TDUP trades at $7.69.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas TDUP's P/E ratio is -26.52. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to TDUP's ROE of -0.98%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to TDUP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TDUP's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, HEPS has a market cap of 806.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while HEPS trades at $2.51.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas HEPS's P/E ratio is -19.31. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to HEPS's ROE of -0.51%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to HEPS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check HEPS's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, LQDT has a market cap of 775.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while LQDT trades at $24.84.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas LQDT's P/E ratio is 31.44. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to LQDT's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to LQDT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LQDT's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, OSTK has a market cap of 768M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while OSTK trades at $16.78.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas OSTK's P/E ratio is -4.64. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to OSTK's ROE of -1.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to OSTK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check OSTK's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, YSG has a market cap of 758M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while YSG trades at $8.21.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas YSG's P/E ratio is -10.15. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to YSG's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to YSG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check YSG's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BBW has a market cap of 678M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BBW trades at $51.34.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BBW's P/E ratio is 12.37. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBW's ROE of +0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBW's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, NEGG has a market cap of 671.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while NEGG trades at $34.31.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas NEGG's P/E ratio is -15.39. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to NEGG's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to NEGG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check NEGG's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BYON has a market cap of 581.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BYON trades at $10.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BYON's P/E ratio is -2.15. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BYON's ROE of -1.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BYON. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BYON's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ODP has a market cap of 559.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ODP trades at $18.58.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ODP's P/E ratio is 14.53. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ODP's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ODP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ODP's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, HNST has a market cap of 546.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while HNST trades at $4.95.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas HNST's P/E ratio is -248.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to HNST's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to HNST. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check HNST's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ARKO has a market cap of 531M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ARKO trades at $4.66.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ARKO's P/E ratio is 155.33. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ARKO's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ARKO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ARKO's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, DADA has a market cap of 506.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while DADA trades at $1.96.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas DADA's P/E ratio is -1.80. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to DADA's ROE of -0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DADA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DADA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, HZO has a market cap of 494.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while HZO trades at $23.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas HZO's P/E ratio is -19.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to HZO's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to HZO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check HZO's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ZKH has a market cap of 480.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ZKH trades at $3.03.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ZKH's P/E ratio is -15.95. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ZKH's ROE of -0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ZKH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ZKH's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BWMX has a market cap of 413.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BWMX trades at $10.96.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BWMX's P/E ratio is -52.76. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BWMX's ROE of +0.45%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BWMX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BWMX's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, FLWS has a market cap of 405.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while FLWS trades at $6.38.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas FLWS's P/E ratio is -2.42. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to FLWS's ROE of -0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to FLWS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check FLWS's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, LE has a market cap of 392.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while LE trades at $12.89.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas LE's P/E ratio is 99.15. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to LE's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to LE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LE's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BNED has a market cap of 314.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BNED trades at $9.24.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BNED's P/E ratio is -0.76. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BNED's ROE of -0.40%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BNED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BNED's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, JMIA has a market cap of 297.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while JMIA trades at $4.85.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas JMIA's P/E ratio is -7.72. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to JMIA's ROE of -1.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to JMIA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check JMIA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CHPT has a market cap of 281.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CHPT trades at $0.61.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CHPT's P/E ratio is -1.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CHPT's ROE of -1.57%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CHPT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CHPT's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, FTCH has a market cap of 254.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while FTCH trades at $0.64.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas FTCH's P/E ratio is -0.28. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to FTCH's ROE of +0.86%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to FTCH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check FTCH's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, QRTEA has a market cap of 213.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while QRTEA trades at $0.36.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas QRTEA's P/E ratio is -0.51. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to QRTEA's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QRTEA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QRTEA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, LOGC has a market cap of 205.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while LOGC trades at $7.83.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas LOGC's P/E ratio is -10.13. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to LOGC's ROE of -0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to LOGC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LOGC's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BARK-WT has a market cap of 198.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BARK-WT trades at $0.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BARK-WT's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BARK-WT's ROE of -0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BARK-WT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BARK-WT's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BZUN has a market cap of 175.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BZUN trades at $2.80.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BZUN's P/E ratio is -6.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BZUN's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BZUN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BZUN's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BARK has a market cap of 173.6M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BARK trades at $1.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BARK's P/E ratio is -5.39. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BARK's ROE of -0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BARK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BARK's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, VLTA has a market cap of 150M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while VLTA trades at $0.86.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas VLTA's P/E ratio is -1.30. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to VLTA's ROE of -0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to VLTA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check VLTA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, SPWH has a market cap of 130.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while SPWH trades at $3.41.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas SPWH's P/E ratio is -3.59. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SPWH's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SPWH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SPWH's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, QRTEP has a market cap of 130M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while QRTEP trades at $39.91.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas QRTEP's P/E ratio is 120.21. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to QRTEP's ROE of +4.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QRTEP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QRTEP's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, GOED has a market cap of 129.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while GOED trades at $1.23.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas GOED's P/E ratio is 1.81. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GOED's ROE of -0.94%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to GOED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check GOED's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, AKA has a market cap of 117.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while AKA trades at $11.01.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas AKA's P/E ratio is -4.60. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to AKA's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to AKA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check AKA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, OCG has a market cap of 106M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while OCG trades at $5.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas OCG's P/E ratio is -28.39. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to OCG's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to OCG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check OCG's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, APRN has a market cap of 100M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while APRN trades at $12.99.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas APRN's P/E ratio is -0.70. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to APRN's ROE of -1.93%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to APRN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check APRN's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, DIBS has a market cap of 96M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while DIBS trades at $2.69.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas DIBS's P/E ratio is -4.89. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to DIBS's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DIBS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DIBS's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, HOUR has a market cap of 66.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while HOUR trades at $1.88.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas HOUR's P/E ratio is 188.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to HOUR's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to HOUR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check HOUR's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, GRWG has a market cap of 65.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while GRWG trades at $1.10.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas GRWG's P/E ratio is -1.31. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GRWG's ROE of -0.38%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to GRWG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check GRWG's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, NHTC has a market cap of 53M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while NHTC trades at $4.63.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas NHTC's P/E ratio is 115.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to NHTC's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to NHTC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check NHTC's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, QRTEB has a market cap of 51.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while QRTEB trades at $2.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas QRTEB's P/E ratio is -2.82. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to QRTEB's ROE of +4.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QRTEB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QRTEB's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, PRTS has a market cap of 49.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while PRTS trades at $0.86.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas PRTS's P/E ratio is -0.98. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to PRTS's ROE of -0.55%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to PRTS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check PRTS's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CTIB has a market cap of 48.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CTIB trades at $2.40.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CTIB's P/E ratio is -26.67. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CTIB's ROE of -0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CTIB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CTIB's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, ZOOZ has a market cap of 44.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while ZOOZ trades at $3.66.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas ZOOZ's P/E ratio is -3.36. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ZOOZ's ROE of -1.98%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ZOOZ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ZOOZ's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, QVCGP has a market cap of 43.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while QVCGP trades at $5.57.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas QVCGP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to QVCGP's ROE of +4.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QVCGP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QVCGP's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BBBY has a market cap of 42M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BBBY trades at $0.08.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BBBY's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBBY's ROE of +2.66%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBBY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBBY's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, LGCB has a market cap of 36.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while LGCB trades at $2.70.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas LGCB's P/E ratio is -6.28. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to LGCB's ROE of -0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to LGCB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LGCB's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, SSU has a market cap of 36.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while SSU trades at $0.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas SSU's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SSU's ROE of -1.09%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SSU. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SSU's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, KIRK has a market cap of 33.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while KIRK trades at $1.49.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas KIRK's P/E ratio is -0.91. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to KIRK's ROE of +1.27%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to KIRK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check KIRK's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, BGFV has a market cap of 32.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while BGFV trades at $1.43.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas BGFV's P/E ratio is -0.40. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BGFV's ROE of -0.41%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to BGFV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BGFV's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, QVCGB has a market cap of 31.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while QVCGB trades at $32.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas QVCGB's P/E ratio is -0.18. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to QVCGB's ROE of +4.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to QVCGB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QVCGB's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, DTC has a market cap of 31.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while DTC trades at $19.55.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas DTC's P/E ratio is -0.23. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to DTC's ROE of -0.88%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DTC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DTC's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, QVCGA has a market cap of 31.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while QVCGA trades at $3.97.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas QVCGA's P/E ratio is -0.02. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to QVCGA's ROE of +4.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QVCGA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QVCGA's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, TLF has a market cap of 29.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while TLF trades at $3.46.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas TLF's P/E ratio is 2.31. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to TLF's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to TLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TLF's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, CGTL has a market cap of 21.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while CGTL trades at $1.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas CGTL's P/E ratio is 5.10. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CGTL's ROE of +0.35%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CGTL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CGTL's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, IPW has a market cap of 20.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while IPW trades at $0.66.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas IPW's P/E ratio is -13.27. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to IPW's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to IPW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check IPW's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, FTEL has a market cap of 19.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while FTEL trades at $0.92.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas FTEL's P/E ratio is -1.88. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to FTEL's ROE of -1.09%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to FTEL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check FTEL's competition here

MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 8.3B. In comparison, JBDI has a market cap of 18.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $422.59, while JBDI trades at $0.95.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 17.89, whereas JBDI's P/E ratio is -6.34. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to JBDI's ROE of -1.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to JBDI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check JBDI's competition here