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 | $458.71 | +0.26% | 9.06B | 19.43 | $23.61 | +0.42% |
| AMZN | $206.16 | +0.28% | 2.19T | 33.52 | $6.15 | N/A |
| BABA | $123.02 | -0.36% | 300.57B | 13.56 | $9.07 | N/A |
| MELI | $2,578.35 | -0.25% | 130.72B | 68.52 | $37.63 | N/A |
| SE | $162.72 | +0.75% | 96.33B | 113.00 | $1.44 | N/A |
| ORLY | $1,393.90 | +0.89% | 79.44B | 34.20 | $40.76 | N/A |
| CVNA | $305.09 | +1.73% | 65.33B | 105.93 | $2.88 | N/A |
| AZO | $3,879.52 | +2.46% | 64.90B | 26.07 | $148.81 | N/A |
| CPNG | $27.15 | -0.35% | 49.28B | 193.89 | $0.14 | N/A |
| JD | $33.69 | +0.42% | 49.18B | 8.24 | $4.09 | +2.92% |
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 9.06B. In comparison, AMZN has a market cap of 2.19T. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while AMZN trades at $206.16.
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 19.43, whereas AMZN's P/E ratio is 33.52. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to AMZN's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to AMZN. This indicates potentially lower 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 9.06B. In comparison, BABA has a market cap of 300.57B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BABA trades at $123.02.
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 19.43, whereas BABA's P/E ratio is 13.56. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BABA's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BABA. 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 9.06B. In comparison, MELI has a market cap of 130.72B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while MELI trades at $2,578.35.
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 19.43, whereas MELI's P/E ratio is 68.52. 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 9.06B. In comparison, SE has a market cap of 96.33B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while SE trades at $162.72.
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 19.43, whereas SE's P/E ratio is 113.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SE's ROE of +0.06%. 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 9.06B. In comparison, ORLY has a market cap of 79.44B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ORLY trades at $1,393.90.
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 19.43, whereas ORLY's P/E ratio is 34.20. 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 9.06B. In comparison, CVNA has a market cap of 65.33B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while CVNA trades at $305.09.
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 19.43, whereas CVNA's P/E ratio is 105.93. 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 9.06B. In comparison, AZO has a market cap of 64.90B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while AZO trades at $3,879.52.
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 19.43, whereas AZO's P/E ratio is 26.07. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to AZO's ROE of -0.56%. 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 9.06B. In comparison, CPNG has a market cap of 49.28B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while CPNG trades at $27.15.
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 19.43, whereas CPNG's P/E ratio is 193.89. 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 9.06B. In comparison, JD has a market cap of 49.18B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while JD trades at $33.69.
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 19.43, whereas JD's P/E ratio is 8.24. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to JD's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to JD. This indicates potentially lower 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 9.06B. In comparison, PDD has a market cap of 42.04B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while PDD trades at $118.44.
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 19.43, whereas PDD's P/E ratio is 11.23. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to PDD's ROE of +0.42%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, VIPS has a market cap of 39.81B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while VIPS trades at $15.47.
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 19.43, whereas VIPS's P/E ratio is 7.77. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to VIPS's ROE of +0.20%. 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 9.06B. In comparison, EBAY has a market cap of 33.38B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while EBAY trades at $72.43.
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 19.43, whereas EBAY's P/E ratio is 17.41. 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.
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 9.06B. In comparison, TSCO has a market cap of 28.05B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while TSCO trades at $52.91.
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 19.43, whereas TSCO's P/E ratio is 26.32. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, FIVE has a market cap of 23.99B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while FIVE trades at $108.94.
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 19.43, whereas FIVE's P/E ratio is 23.68. 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.
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 9.06B. In comparison, WSM has a market cap of 21.43B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while WSM trades at $174.29.
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 19.43, whereas WSM's P/E ratio is 19.81. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WSM's ROE of +0.54%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, ULTA has a market cap of 18.51B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ULTA trades at $410.09.
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 19.43, whereas ULTA's P/E ratio is 16.17. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ULTA's ROE of +0.51%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, GPC has a market cap of 17.91B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while GPC trades at $129.08.
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 19.43, whereas GPC's P/E ratio is 21.19. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GPC's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to GPC. This indicates potentially lower 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 9.06B. In comparison, CHWY has a market cap of 17.91B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while CHWY trades at $43.31.
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 19.43, whereas CHWY's P/E ratio is 47.59. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CHWY's ROE of +0.97%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, CASY has a market cap of 16.93B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while CASY trades at $456.09.
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 19.43, whereas CASY's P/E ratio is 31.74. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CASY's ROE of +0.17%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BBY has a market cap of 15.15B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BBY trades at $71.58.
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 19.43, whereas BBY's P/E ratio is 16.72. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBY's ROE of +0.31%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, DKS has a market cap of 14.63B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while DKS trades at $182.76.
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 19.43, whereas DKS's P/E ratio is 13.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to DKS's ROE of +0.39%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, GME has a market cap of 12.48B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while GME trades at $27.91.
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 19.43, whereas GME's P/E ratio is 84.56. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GME's ROE of +0.03%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, CART has a market cap of 11.98B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while CART trades at $45.94.
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 19.43, whereas CART's P/E ratio is 30.22. 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.
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 9.06B. In comparison, BBWI has a market cap of 7.15B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BBWI trades at $33.57.
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 19.43, whereas BBWI's P/E ratio is 9.30. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBWI's ROE of -0.49%. 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.
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 9.06B. In comparison, QVCGP has a market cap of 6.61B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while QVCGP trades at $16.76.
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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, GLBE has a market cap of 5.54B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while GLBE trades at $32.68.
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 19.43, whereas GLBE's P/E ratio is -88.32. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to GLBE's ROE of -0.09%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, W has a market cap of 4.97B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while W trades at $38.67.
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 19.43, whereas W's P/E ratio is -13.62. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, ETSY has a market cap of 4.90B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ETSY trades at $47.03.
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 19.43, whereas ETSY's P/E ratio is 34.08. 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 9.06B. In comparison, RH has a market cap of 3.82B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while RH trades at $203.72.
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 19.43, whereas RH's P/E ratio is 56.43. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to RH's ROE of -0.33%. 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 9.06B. In comparison, ASO has a market cap of 3.00B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ASO trades at $45.14.
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 19.43, whereas ASO's P/E ratio is 7.88. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ASO's ROE of +0.21%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, OZON has a market cap of 2.42B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, AAP has a market cap of 2.06B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while AAP trades at $34.35.
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 19.43, whereas AAP's P/E ratio is -3.49. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to AAP's ROE of -0.14%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, MNSO has a market cap of 1.60B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while MNSO trades at $20.78.
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 19.43, whereas MNSO's P/E ratio is 17.76. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to MNSO's ROE of +0.27%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, SVV has a market cap of 1.59B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while SVV trades at $10.08.
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 19.43, whereas SVV's P/E ratio is 72.00. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, EYE has a market cap of 1.52B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while EYE trades at $19.22.
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 19.43, whereas EYE's P/E ratio is -60.06. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, WINA has a market cap of 1.49B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while WINA trades at $422.42.
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 19.43, whereas WINA's P/E ratio is 37.82. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, RVLV has a market cap of 1.48B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while RVLV trades at $20.78.
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 19.43, whereas RVLV's P/E ratio is 29.69. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, TA has a market cap of 1.30B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 9.06B. In comparison, EVGOW has a market cap of 1.18B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while EVGOW trades at $0.27.
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 19.43, 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 9.06B. In comparison, EVGO has a market cap of 1.14B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while EVGO trades at $3.72.
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 19.43, whereas EVGO's P/E ratio is -9.07. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, TANNI has a market cap of 1.00B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, WOOF has a market cap of 995.63M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while WOOF trades at $3.59.
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 19.43, whereas WOOF's P/E ratio is -9.70. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WOOF's ROE of -0.09%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, RERE has a market cap of 945.92M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while RERE trades at $2.84.
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 19.43, whereas RERE's P/E ratio is -56.80. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to RERE's ROE of -0.00%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, SBH has a market cap of 914.60M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while SBH trades at $9.07.
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 19.43, whereas SBH's P/E ratio is 5.15. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SBH's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to SBH. This indicates potentially higher 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 9.06B. In comparison, HEPS has a market cap of 876.93M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while HEPS 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 19.43, whereas HEPS's P/E ratio is -19.21. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, OLPX has a market cap of 839.06M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while OLPX trades at $1.26.
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 19.43, whereas OLPX's P/E ratio is 63.00. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, TDUP has a market cap of 827.14M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while TDUP trades at $7.00.
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 19.43, whereas TDUP's P/E ratio is -24.12. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, LQDT has a market cap of 771.78M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while LQDT trades at $24.72.
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 19.43, whereas LQDT's P/E ratio is 31.29. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, OSTK has a market cap of 768.04M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, HNST has a market cap of 601.89M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while HNST trades at $5.46.
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 19.43, whereas HNST's P/E ratio is -273.00. 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 9.06B. In comparison, ARKO has a market cap of 566.36M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ARKO trades at $4.97.
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 19.43, whereas ARKO's P/E ratio is 165.67. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ARKO's ROE of +0.06%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BBW has a market cap of 549.24M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BBW trades at $41.59.
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 19.43, whereas BBW's P/E ratio is 10.94. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BBW's ROE of +0.40%. 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 9.06B. In comparison, ODP has a market cap of 528.55M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ODP trades at $17.57.
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 19.43, whereas ODP's P/E ratio is 13.73. 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 9.06B. In comparison, HZO has a market cap of 498.61M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while HZO trades at $23.22.
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 19.43, whereas HZO's P/E ratio is 9.48. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BYON has a market cap of 387.03M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BYON trades at $6.71.
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 19.43, whereas BYON's P/E ratio is -1.43. 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 9.06B. In comparison, BNED has a market cap of 372.21M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BNED trades at $10.93.
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 19.43, whereas BNED's P/E ratio is -0.90. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BWMX has a market cap of 354.88M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BWMX trades at $9.51.
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 19.43, whereas BWMX's P/E ratio is -47.55. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, CHPT has a market cap of 319.69M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while CHPT trades at $0.69.
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 19.43, whereas CHPT's P/E ratio is -1.08. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to CHPT's ROE of -1.34%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, FLWS has a market cap of 295.57M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while FLWS trades at $4.65.
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 19.43, whereas FLWS's P/E ratio is -1.76. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, LE has a market cap of 279.79M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while LE trades at $9.06.
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 19.43, whereas LE's P/E ratio is 45.30. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to LE's ROE of +0.03%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, FTCH has a market cap of 254.21M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BARK-WT has a market cap of 227.39M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BARK-WT trades at $0.07.
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 19.43, 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 -0.25%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BARK has a market cap of 221.27M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BARK trades at $1.27.
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 19.43, whereas BARK's P/E ratio is -7.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to BARK's ROE of -0.25%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, QRTEA has a market cap of 213.51M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 9.06B. In comparison, LOGC has a market cap of 208.90M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while LOGC trades at $7.85.
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 19.43, whereas LOGC's P/E ratio is -10.33. 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 9.06B. In comparison, BZUN has a market cap of 203.77M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BZUN trades at $3.32.
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 19.43, whereas BZUN's P/E ratio is -7.72. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, JMIA has a market cap of 191.65M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while JMIA trades at $3.13.
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 19.43, whereas JMIA's P/E ratio is -4.97. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, VLTA has a market cap of 149.96M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, AKA has a market cap of 144.76M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while AKA trades at $13.51.
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 19.43, whereas AKA's P/E ratio is -5.65. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, DADA has a market cap of 132.17M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while DADA trades at $2.04.
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 19.43, whereas DADA's P/E ratio is -1.89. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to DADA's ROE of -0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to DADA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.
MUSA vs WBUY 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 9.06B. In comparison, WBUY has a market cap of 130.91M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while WBUY trades at $5.95.
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 19.43, whereas WBUY's P/E ratio is -0.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to WBUY's ROE of -1.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to WBUY. This indicates potentially lower 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 9.06B. In comparison, QRTEP has a market cap of 130.03M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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.
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 9.06B. In comparison, GOED has a market cap of 129.43M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, NEGG has a market cap of 119.68M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while NEGG trades at $6.17.
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 19.43, whereas NEGG's P/E ratio is -2.74. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to NEGG's ROE of -0.33%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, APRN has a market cap of 99.98M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 +3.45%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, OCG has a market cap of 95.45M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while OCG trades at $5.14.
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 19.43, whereas OCG's P/E ratio is -8.29. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to OCG's ROE of -0.07%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, DIBS has a market cap of 88.85M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while DIBS trades at $2.49.
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 19.43, whereas DIBS's P/E ratio is -4.53. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to DIBS's ROE of -0.15%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, QVCGB has a market cap of 88.74M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while QVCGB trades at $5.31.
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 19.43, whereas QVCGB's P/E ratio is -1.51. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to QVCGB's ROE of +4.53%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QVCGB. 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 9.06B. In comparison, SPWH has a market cap of 77.34M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while SPWH trades at $2.02.
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 19.43, whereas SPWH's P/E ratio is -2.32. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to SPWH's ROE of -0.14%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, GRWG has a market cap of 66.64M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while GRWG trades at $1.12.
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 19.43, whereas GRWG's P/E ratio is -1.33. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, NHTC has a market cap of 52.95M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while NHTC trades at $4.60.
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 19.43, whereas NHTC's P/E ratio is 114.99. 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 9.06B. In comparison, QRTEB has a market cap of 51.32M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, PRTS has a market cap of 49.48M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while PRTS trades at $0.85.
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 19.43, whereas PRTS's P/E ratio is -0.97. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, CTIB has a market cap of 48.23M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, HOUR has a market cap of 43.25M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while HOUR 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 19.43, whereas HOUR's P/E ratio is 123.00. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BBBY has a market cap of 41.96M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, QVCGA has a market cap of 40.50M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while QVCGA trades at $0.10.
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 19.43, whereas QVCGA's P/E ratio is -0.03. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, SSU has a market cap of 36.31M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 9.06B. In comparison, BGFV has a market cap of 29.25M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while BGFV trades at $1.28.
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 19.43, whereas BGFV's P/E ratio is -0.36. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, KIRK has a market cap of 26.05M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while KIRK trades at $1.16.
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 19.43, whereas KIRK's P/E ratio is -0.66. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to KIRK's ROE of -0.49%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, TLF has a market cap of 24.88M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while TLF trades at $2.93.
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 19.43, whereas TLF's P/E ratio is 32.52. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, JBDI has a market cap of 22.56M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while JBDI trades at $1.14.
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 19.43, whereas JBDI's P/E ratio is -22.80. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, YSG has a market cap of 21.93M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while YSG trades at $4.76.
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 19.43, whereas YSG's P/E ratio is -4.90. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to YSG's ROE of -0.20%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, CGTL has a market cap of 20.00M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while CGTL trades at $0.93.
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 19.43, whereas CGTL's P/E ratio is 4.67. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, IPW has a market cap of 16.00M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while IPW trades at $0.51.
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 19.43, whereas IPW's P/E ratio is -7.29. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to IPW's ROE of -0.03%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, ZOOZ has a market cap of 15.74M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ZOOZ trades at $1.30.
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 19.43, whereas ZOOZ's P/E ratio is -1.19. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, ZKH has a market cap of 14.08M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while ZKH trades at $3.08.
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 19.43, whereas ZKH's P/E ratio is -12.83. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.61%, compared to ZKH's ROE of -0.09%. 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 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 9.06B. In comparison, BOXD has a market cap of 14.01M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, 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 19.43, 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 FTEL 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 9.06B. In comparison, FTEL has a market cap of 11.11M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $458.71, while FTEL trades at $0.53.
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 19.43, whereas FTEL's P/E ratio is -1.08. 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.