Murphy USA Inc.
Murphy USA Inc. MUSA Peers
See (MUSA) competitors and their performances in Stock Market.
Peer Comparison Table: Specialty Retail Industry
Detailed financial metrics including price, market cap, P/E ratio, and more.
| Symbol | Price | Change % | Market Cap | P/E Ratio | EPS | Dividend Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MUSA | $406.80 | +0.00% | 8.2B | 17.65 | $23.60 | +0.46% |
| AMZN | $219.39 | +0.00% | 2.3T | 35.85 | $6.15 | N/A |
| BABA | $113.41 | +0.00% | 272B | 12.57 | $9.07 | +1.73% |
| PDD | $104.66 | +0.00% | 146.5B | 11.32 | $9.32 | N/A |
| MELI | $2,613.63 | +0.00% | 126.8B | 61.43 | $40.72 | N/A |
| SE | $159.94 | +0.00% | 89.1B | 105.26 | $1.43 | N/A |
| ORLY | $90.13 | +0.00% | 77.4B | 33.27 | $2.72 | N/A |
| CVNA | $336.96 | +0.00% | 72.4B | 117.44 | $2.88 | N/A |
| AZO | $3,712.23 | +0.00% | 62.2B | 25.17 | $147.64 | N/A |
| CPNG | $29.96 | +0.02% | 54.3B | 213.68 | $0.14 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
MUSA vs AMZN Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, AMZN has a market cap of 2.3T. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while AMZN trades at $219.39.
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 17.65, whereas AMZN's P/E ratio is 35.85. 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.
MUSA vs BABA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BABA has a market cap of 272B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BABA trades at $113.41.
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 17.65, whereas BABA's P/E ratio is 12.57. 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.
MUSA vs PDD Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, PDD has a market cap of 146.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while PDD trades at $104.66.
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 17.65, whereas PDD's P/E ratio is 11.32. 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.
MUSA vs MELI Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, MELI has a market cap of 126.8B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while MELI trades at $2,613.63.
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 17.65, whereas MELI's P/E ratio is 61.43. 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.
MUSA vs SE Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, SE has a market cap of 89.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while SE trades at $159.94.
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 17.65, whereas SE's P/E ratio is 105.26. 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.
MUSA vs ORLY Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ORLY has a market cap of 77.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ORLY trades at $90.13.
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 17.65, whereas ORLY's P/E ratio is 33.27. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ORLY's ROE of -1.65%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to ORLY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs CVNA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CVNA has a market cap of 72.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while CVNA trades at $336.96.
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 17.65, whereas CVNA's P/E ratio is 117.44. 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.
MUSA vs AZO Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, AZO has a market cap of 62.2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while AZO trades at $3,712.23.
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 17.65, whereas AZO's P/E ratio is 25.17. 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.
MUSA vs CPNG Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CPNG has a market cap of 54.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while CPNG trades at $29.96.
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 17.65, whereas CPNG's P/E ratio is 213.68. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CPNG's ROE of +0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CPNG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs JD Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, JD has a market cap of 47.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while JD trades at $32.64.
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 17.65, whereas JD's P/E ratio is 7.96. 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.
MUSA vs VIPS Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, VIPS has a market cap of 38.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while VIPS trades at $15.05.
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 17.65, whereas VIPS's P/E ratio is 7.79. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to VIPS's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to VIPS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs EBAY Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, EBAY has a market cap of 35.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while EBAY trades at $74.46.
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 17.65, whereas EBAY's P/E ratio is 18.29. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to EBAY's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to EBAY. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs TSCO Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, TSCO has a market cap of 28.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while TSCO trades at $52.77.
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 17.65, whereas TSCO's P/E ratio is 26.91. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to TSCO's ROE of +0.48%. 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.
MUSA vs ULTA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ULTA has a market cap of 21.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ULTA trades at $467.82.
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 17.65, whereas ULTA's P/E ratio is 18.50. 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.
MUSA vs WSM Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, WSM has a market cap of 20.8B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while WSM trades at $163.37.
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 17.65, whereas WSM's P/E ratio is 19.54. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WSM's ROE of +0.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to WSM. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs CASY Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CASY has a market cap of 19B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while CASY trades at $510.27.
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 17.65, whereas CASY's P/E ratio is 34.93. 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.
MUSA vs GPC Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, GPC has a market cap of 17.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while GPC trades at $121.31.
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 17.65, whereas GPC's P/E ratio is 20.58. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GPC's ROE of +0.19%. 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.
MUSA vs CHWY Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CHWY has a market cap of 17.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while CHWY trades at $42.62.
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 17.65, whereas CHWY's P/E ratio is 46.01. 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.
MUSA vs DKS Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, DKS has a market cap of 16.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while DKS trades at $197.81.
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 17.65, whereas DKS's P/E ratio is 14.74. 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.
MUSA vs BBY Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BBY has a market cap of 14.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BBY trades at $67.13.
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 17.65, whereas BBY's P/E ratio is 17.23. 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.
MUSA vs CART Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CART has a market cap of 11.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while CART trades at $45.24.
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 17.65, whereas CART's P/E ratio is 30.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CART's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to CART. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs GME Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, GME has a market cap of 10.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while GME trades at $24.39.
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 17.65, whereas GME's P/E ratio is 44.81. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GME's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to GME. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs FIVE Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, FIVE has a market cap of 7.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while FIVE trades at $131.18.
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 17.65, whereas FIVE's P/E ratio is 27.86. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to FIVE's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to FIVE. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs BBWI Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BBWI has a market cap of 6.8B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BBWI trades at $29.96.
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 17.65, whereas BBWI's P/E ratio is 8.64. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBWI's ROE of -0.52%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to BBWI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs W Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, W has a market cap of 6.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while W trades at $51.14.
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 17.65, whereas W's P/E ratio is -18.29. 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.
MUSA vs GLBE Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, GLBE has a market cap of 5.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while GLBE trades at $33.54.
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 17.65, whereas GLBE's P/E ratio is -88.78. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GLBE's ROE of -0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to GLBE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs ETSY Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ETSY has a market cap of 5.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ETSY trades at $50.16.
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 17.65, whereas ETSY's P/E ratio is 37.22. 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.
MUSA vs RH Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, RH has a market cap of 3.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while RH trades at $189.01.
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 17.65, whereas RH's P/E ratio is 47.23. 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.
MUSA vs ASO Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ASO has a market cap of 3.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ASO trades at $44.81.
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 17.65, whereas ASO's P/E ratio is 8.73. 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.
MUSA vs AAP Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, AAP has a market cap of 3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while AAP trades at $46.49.
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 17.65, whereas AAP's P/E ratio is -5.09. 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.
MUSA vs OZON Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, OZON has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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 +0.89%. 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.
MUSA vs EYE Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, EYE has a market cap of 1.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while EYE 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 17.65, whereas EYE's P/E ratio is -75.59. 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.
MUSA vs SVV Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, SVV has a market cap of 1.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while SVV trades at $10.20.
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 17.65, whereas SVV's P/E ratio is 75.25. 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.
MUSA vs RVLV Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, RVLV has a market cap of 1.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while RVLV trades at $20.05.
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 17.65, whereas RVLV's P/E ratio is 30.43. 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.
MUSA vs MNSO Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, MNSO has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while MNSO trades at $18.22.
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 17.65, whereas MNSO's P/E ratio is 16.72. 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.
MUSA vs WINA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, WINA has a market cap of 1.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while WINA trades at $377.61.
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 17.65, whereas WINA's P/E ratio is 34.53. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WINA's ROE of -0.95%. 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.
MUSA vs TA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, TA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs EVGOW Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, EVGOW has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while EVGOW trades at $0.22.
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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs EVGO Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, EVGO has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while EVGO trades at $3.65.
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 17.65, whereas EVGO's P/E ratio is -8.61. 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.
MUSA vs OLPX Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, OLPX has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while OLPX trades at $1.40.
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 17.65, whereas OLPX's P/E ratio is 75.75. 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.
MUSA vs TANNI Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, TANNI has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs SBH Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, SBH has a market cap of 992.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while SBH trades at $9.26.
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 17.65, whereas SBH's P/E ratio is 5.59. 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.
MUSA vs TDUP Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, TDUP has a market cap of 921.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while TDUP trades at $7.49.
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 17.65, whereas TDUP's P/E ratio is -26.86. 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.
MUSA vs YSG Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, YSG has a market cap of 907.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while YSG trades at $9.64.
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 17.65, whereas YSG's P/E ratio is -12.15. 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.
MUSA vs HEPS Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, HEPS has a market cap of 896.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while HEPS 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 17.65, whereas HEPS's P/E ratio is -19.93. 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.
MUSA vs WOOF Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, WOOF has a market cap of 800.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while WOOF trades at $2.83.
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 17.65, whereas WOOF's P/E ratio is -11.96. 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.
MUSA vs OSTK Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, OSTK has a market cap of 768M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs RERE Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, RERE has a market cap of 747.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while RERE trades at $3.31.
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 17.65, whereas RERE's P/E ratio is 37.39. 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.
MUSA vs LQDT Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, LQDT has a market cap of 741.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while LQDT trades at $23.59.
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 17.65, whereas LQDT's P/E ratio is 30.08. 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.
MUSA vs BBW Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BBW has a market cap of 695.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BBW trades at $51.56.
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 17.65, whereas BBW's P/E ratio is 12.68. 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.
MUSA vs ODP Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ODP has a market cap of 592M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ODP trades at $18.13.
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 17.65, whereas ODP's P/E ratio is 15.37. 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.
MUSA vs HZO Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, HZO has a market cap of 572.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while HZO trades at $25.14.
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 17.65, whereas HZO's P/E ratio is 10.89. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to HZO's ROE of +0.06%. 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.
MUSA vs HNST Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, HNST has a market cap of 560M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while HNST 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 17.65, whereas HNST's P/E ratio is -254.00. 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.
MUSA vs ARKO Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ARKO has a market cap of 525.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ARKO trades at $4.23.
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 17.65, whereas ARKO's P/E ratio is 153.67. 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.
MUSA vs ZKH Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ZKH has a market cap of 488.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ZKH trades at $3.07.
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 17.65, whereas ZKH's P/E ratio is -16.21. 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.
MUSA vs BYON Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BYON has a market cap of 412.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BYON trades at $6.88.
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 17.65, whereas BYON's P/E ratio is -1.53. 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.
MUSA vs BNED Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BNED has a market cap of 398.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BNED trades at $11.77.
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 17.65, whereas BNED's P/E ratio is -0.97. 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.
MUSA vs LE Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, LE has a market cap of 354.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while LE trades at $10.71.
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 17.65, whereas LE's P/E ratio is 89.54. 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.
MUSA vs FLWS Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, FLWS has a market cap of 340.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while FLWS trades at $4.92.
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 17.65, whereas FLWS's P/E ratio is -2.03. 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.
MUSA vs CHPT Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CHPT has a market cap of 325.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while CHPT trades at $0.70.
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 17.65, whereas CHPT's P/E ratio is -1.20. 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.
MUSA vs BWMX Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BWMX has a market cap of 321.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BWMX trades at $8.65.
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 17.65, whereas BWMX's P/E ratio is -43.05. 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.
MUSA vs NEGG Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, NEGG has a market cap of 304.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while NEGG trades at $16.24.
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 17.65, whereas NEGG's P/E ratio is -6.98. 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.
MUSA vs JMIA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, JMIA has a market cap of 286.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while JMIA trades at $4.02.
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 17.65, whereas JMIA's P/E ratio is -7.42. 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.
MUSA vs FTCH Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, FTCH has a market cap of 254.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs QRTEA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, QRTEA has a market cap of 213.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs LOGC Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, LOGC has a market cap of 188.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while LOGC trades at $6.81.
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 17.65, whereas LOGC's P/E ratio is -9.28. 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.
MUSA vs BZUN Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BZUN has a market cap of 155.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BZUN trades at $2.50.
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 17.65, whereas BZUN's P/E ratio is -6.12. 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.
MUSA vs BARK Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BARK has a market cap of 150M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BARK trades at $0.88.
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 17.65, whereas BARK's P/E ratio is -4.66. 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.
MUSA vs VLTA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, VLTA has a market cap of 150M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs QRTEP Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, QRTEP has a market cap of 130M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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 more volatile compared to QRTEP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs GOED Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, GOED has a market cap of 129.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs OCG Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, OCG has a market cap of 127M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while OCG trades at $6.10.
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 17.65, whereas OCG's P/E ratio is -34.03. 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.
MUSA vs DADA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, DADA has a market cap of 126.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs SPWH Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, SPWH has a market cap of 126.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while SPWH trades at $3.45.
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 17.65, whereas SPWH's P/E ratio is -3.47. 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.
MUSA vs AKA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, AKA has a market cap of 114.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while AKA trades at $10.30.
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 17.65, whereas AKA's P/E ratio is -4.49. 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.
MUSA vs DIBS Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, DIBS has a market cap of 102.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while DIBS trades at $2.75.
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 17.65, whereas DIBS's P/E ratio is -5.24. 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.
MUSA vs APRN Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, APRN has a market cap of 100M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs QVCGP Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, QVCGP has a market cap of 59.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while QVCGP trades at $6.87.
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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs GRWG Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, GRWG has a market cap of 58.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while GRWG trades at $0.94.
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 17.65, whereas GRWG's P/E ratio is -1.18. 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.
MUSA vs HOUR Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, HOUR has a market cap of 55.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while HOUR 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 17.65, whereas HOUR's P/E ratio is 159.00. 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.
MUSA vs BARK-WT Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BARK-WT has a market cap of 54.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BARK-WT trades at $0.01.
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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs NHTC Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, NHTC has a market cap of 51.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while NHTC trades at $4.33.
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 17.65, whereas NHTC's P/E ratio is 111.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to NHTC's ROE of +0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to NHTC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs QRTEB Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, QRTEB has a market cap of 51.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs CTIB Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CTIB has a market cap of 48.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs PRTS Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, PRTS has a market cap of 43.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while PRTS trades at $0.74.
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 17.65, whereas PRTS's P/E ratio is -0.86. 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.
MUSA vs BBBY Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BBBY has a market cap of 42M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs SSU Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, SSU has a market cap of 36.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, 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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs BGFV Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BGFV has a market cap of 32.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BGFV trades at $1.42.
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 17.65, 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 less volatile compared to BGFV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs TLF Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, TLF has a market cap of 26.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while TLF trades at $3.09.
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 17.65, whereas TLF's P/E ratio is 2.10. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to TLF's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to TLF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs QVCGB Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, QVCGB has a market cap of 26.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while QVCGB trades at $36.00.
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 17.65, whereas QVCGB's P/E ratio is -0.21. 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.
MUSA vs CGTL Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, CGTL has a market cap of 25.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while CGTL trades at $1.39.
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 17.65, whereas CGTL's P/E ratio is 6.05. 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.
MUSA vs KIRK Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, KIRK has a market cap of 25.6M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while KIRK trades at $1.08.
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 17.65, whereas KIRK's P/E ratio is -0.70. 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.
MUSA vs QVCGA Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, QVCGA has a market cap of 22.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while QVCGA trades at $2.75.
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 17.65, 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.
MUSA vs IPW Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, IPW has a market cap of 20.6M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while IPW trades at $0.65.
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 17.65, whereas IPW's P/E ratio is -13.12. 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.
MUSA vs JBDI Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, JBDI has a market cap of 20.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while JBDI trades at $1.05.
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 17.65, whereas JBDI's P/E ratio is -6.80. 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.
MUSA vs LGCB Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, LGCB has a market cap of 16.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while LGCB trades at $2.34.
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 17.65, whereas LGCB's P/E ratio is -12.53. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to LGCB's ROE of -0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to LGCB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs BOXD Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, BOXD has a market cap of 14M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while BOXD trades at $0.19.
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 17.65, whereas BOXD's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BOXD's ROE of +0.42%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BOXD. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs ZOOZ Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, ZOOZ has a market cap of 12.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while ZOOZ trades at $1.00.
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 17.65, whereas ZOOZ's P/E ratio is -0.93. 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.
MUSA vs MI Comparison
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 8.2B. In comparison, MI has a market cap of 11M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $406.80, while MI trades at $2.30.
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 17.65, whereas MI's P/E ratio is 1.42. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to MI's ROE of +0.08%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to MI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.