Murphy USA Inc.
Murphy USA Inc. (MUSA) Stock Competitors & Peer Comparison
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 | $387.63 | -2.16% | 7.3B | 16.21 | $24.08 | +0.55% |
| AMZN | $204.98 | +0.06% | 2.3T | 29.34 | $7.16 | N/A |
| BABA | $154.75 | +0.31% | 358.3B | 21.08 | $7.33 | +1.28% |
| PDD | $106.85 | +4.80% | 146.8B | 10.50 | $9.99 | N/A |
| MELI | $1,940.02 | -2.83% | 101.2B | 48.73 | $40.98 | N/A |
| SE | $114.33 | -0.24% | 68B | 50.19 | $2.29 | N/A |
| EBAY | $84.60 | -0.18% | 39.8B | 19.53 | $4.51 | +1.32% |
| JD | $27.24 | -0.13% | 38.9B | 8.90 | $3.08 | +3.58% |
| CPNG | $18.62 | +0.92% | 34.3B | 89.33 | $0.21 | N/A |
| ULTA | $668.10 | -3.56% | 30.6B | 26.07 | $26.19 | N/A |
Stock Comparison
MUSA vs AMZN Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, AMZN has a market cap of 2.3T. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while AMZN trades at $204.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas AMZN's P/E ratio is 29.34. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to AMZN's ROE of +0.22%. 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.Check AMZN's competition here
MUSA vs BABA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BABA has a market cap of 358.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BABA trades at $154.75.
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 16.21, whereas BABA's P/E ratio is 21.08. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BABA's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to BABA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BABA's competition here
MUSA vs PDD Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, PDD has a market cap of 146.8B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while PDD trades at $106.85.
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 16.21, whereas PDD's P/E ratio is 10.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to PDD's ROE of +0.29%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to PDD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check PDD's competition here
MUSA vs MELI Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, MELI has a market cap of 101.2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while MELI trades at $1,940.02.
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 16.21, whereas MELI's P/E ratio is 48.73. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to MELI's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to MELI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check MELI's competition here
MUSA vs SE Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, SE has a market cap of 68B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while SE trades at $114.33.
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 16.21, whereas SE's P/E ratio is 50.19. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to SE's ROE of +0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SE's competition here
MUSA vs EBAY Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, EBAY has a market cap of 39.8B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while EBAY trades at $84.60.
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 16.21, whereas EBAY's P/E ratio is 19.53. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to EBAY's ROE of +0.43%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EBAY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EBAY's competition here
MUSA vs JD Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, JD has a market cap of 38.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while JD trades at $27.24.
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 16.21, whereas JD's P/E ratio is 8.90. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to JD's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to JD. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check JD's competition here
MUSA vs CPNG Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, CPNG has a market cap of 34.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while CPNG trades at $18.62.
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 16.21, whereas CPNG's P/E ratio is 89.33. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to CPNG's ROE of +0.09%. 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.Check CPNG's competition here
MUSA vs ULTA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, ULTA has a market cap of 30.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while ULTA trades at $668.10.
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 16.21, whereas ULTA's P/E ratio is 26.07. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to ULTA's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ULTA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ULTA's competition here
MUSA vs TSCO Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, TSCO has a market cap of 28B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while TSCO trades at $52.99.
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 16.21, whereas TSCO's P/E ratio is 25.71. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to TSCO's ROE of +0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to TSCO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TSCO's competition here
MUSA vs WSM Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, WSM has a market cap of 25.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while WSM trades at $202.91.
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 16.21, whereas WSM's P/E ratio is 23.69. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to WSM's ROE of +0.52%. 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.Check WSM's competition here
MUSA vs CASY Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, CASY has a market cap of 24.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while CASY trades at $659.09.
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 16.21, whereas CASY's P/E ratio is 41.08. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to CASY's ROE of +0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CASY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CASY's competition here
MUSA vs DKS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, DKS has a market cap of 16.7B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while DKS trades at $209.04.
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 16.21, whereas DKS's P/E ratio is 16.79. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to DKS's ROE of +0.27%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DKS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DKS's competition here
MUSA vs GPC Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, GPC has a market cap of 16.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while GPC trades at $116.20.
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 16.21, whereas GPC's P/E ratio is 20.57. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to GPC's ROE of +0.01%. 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.Check GPC's competition here
MUSA vs BBY Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BBY has a market cap of 13.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BBY trades at $62.04.
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 16.21, whereas BBY's P/E ratio is 21.49. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BBY's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBY's competition here
MUSA vs CHWY Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, CHWY has a market cap of 11B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while CHWY trades at $24.81.
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 16.21, whereas CHWY's P/E ratio is 53.98. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to CHWY's ROE of +0.55%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CHWY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CHWY's competition here
MUSA vs W Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, W has a market cap of 10.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while W trades at $75.13.
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 16.21, whereas W's P/E ratio is -31.69. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to W's ROE of +0.11%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to W. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check W's competition here
MUSA vs GME Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, GME has a market cap of 10.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while GME trades at $23.12.
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 16.21, whereas GME's P/E ratio is 26.63. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to GME's ROE of +0.08%. 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.Check GME's competition here
MUSA vs CART Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, CART has a market cap of 9.5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while CART trades at $35.76.
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 16.21, whereas CART's P/E ratio is 22.66. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to CART's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CART. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CART's competition here
MUSA vs VIPS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, VIPS has a market cap of 9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while VIPS trades at $17.32.
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 16.21, whereas VIPS's P/E ratio is 9.18. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to VIPS's ROE of +0.18%. 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.Check VIPS's competition here
MUSA vs GLBE Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, GLBE has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while GLBE trades at $35.04.
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 16.21, whereas GLBE's P/E ratio is 902.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, 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.Check GLBE's competition here
MUSA vs MNSO Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, MNSO has a market cap of 6.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while MNSO trades at $19.62.
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 16.21, whereas MNSO's P/E ratio is 19.43. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to MNSO's ROE of +0.26%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to MNSO. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check MNSO's competition here
MUSA vs ETSY Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, ETSY has a market cap of 5.2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while ETSY trades at $52.64.
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 16.21, whereas ETSY's P/E ratio is 35.28. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to ETSY's ROE of -0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ETSY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ETSY's competition here
MUSA vs BBWI Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BBWI has a market cap of 5B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BBWI trades at $22.61.
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 16.21, whereas BBWI's P/E ratio is 7.54. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BBWI's ROE of -0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBWI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBWI's competition here
MUSA vs ASO Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, ASO has a market cap of 3.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while ASO trades at $58.42.
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 16.21, whereas ASO's P/E ratio is 10.81. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to ASO's ROE of +0.18%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ASO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ASO's competition here
MUSA vs RH Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, RH has a market cap of 3.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while RH trades at $195.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas RH's P/E ratio is 37.65. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to RH's ROE of -1.41%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to RH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check RH's competition here
MUSA vs AAP Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, AAP has a market cap of 3.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while AAP trades at $55.50.
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 16.21, whereas AAP's P/E ratio is 49.42. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to AAP's ROE of +0.02%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to AAP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check AAP's competition here
MUSA vs BOBS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BOBS has a market cap of 2.9B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BOBS trades at $22.17.
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 16.21, whereas BOBS's P/E ratio is 23.94. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BOBS's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BOBS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BOBS's competition here
MUSA vs OZON Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, OZON has a market cap of 2.4B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas OZON's P/E ratio is -2.61. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to OZON's ROE of +1.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to OZON. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check OZON's competition here
MUSA vs EYE Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, EYE has a market cap of 2.2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while EYE trades at $26.17.
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 16.21, whereas EYE's P/E ratio is -547.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to EYE's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EYE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EYE's competition here
MUSA vs RERE Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, RERE has a market cap of 2B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while RERE trades at $5.54.
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 16.21, whereas RERE's P/E ratio is 32.56. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to RERE's ROE of +0.07%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to RERE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check RERE's competition here
MUSA vs RVLV Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, RVLV has a market cap of 1.8B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while RVLV trades at $23.76.
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 16.21, whereas RVLV's P/E ratio is 32.71. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to RVLV's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to RVLV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check RVLV's competition here
MUSA vs SVV Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, SVV has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while SVV trades at $10.01.
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 16.21, whereas SVV's P/E ratio is -1044.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to SVV's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SVV. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SVV's competition here
MUSA vs SBH Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, SBH has a market cap of 1.6B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while SBH trades at $15.31.
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 16.21, whereas SBH's P/E ratio is 9.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to SBH's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SBH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SBH's competition here
MUSA vs TA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, TA has a market cap of 1.3B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas TA's P/E ratio is 9.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to TA's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to TA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TA's competition here
MUSA vs OLPX Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, OLPX has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while OLPX trades at $1.63.
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 16.21, whereas OLPX's P/E ratio is 82.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to OLPX's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to OLPX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check OLPX's competition here
MUSA vs NEGG Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, NEGG has a market cap of 1.1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while NEGG trades at $49.38.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas NEGG's P/E ratio is -43.08. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to NEGG's ROE of -0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to NEGG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check NEGG's competition here
MUSA vs TANNI Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, TANNI has a market cap of 1B. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas TANNI's P/E ratio is 35.27. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to TANNI's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to TANNI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TANNI's competition here
MUSA vs LQDT Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, LQDT has a market cap of 987.6M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while LQDT trades at $30.98.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas LQDT's P/E ratio is 34.61. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to LQDT's ROE of +0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to LQDT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LQDT's competition here
MUSA vs HEPS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, HEPS has a market cap of 872.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while HEPS trades at $2.66.
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 16.21, whereas HEPS's P/E ratio is -12.90. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to HEPS's ROE of -1.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to HEPS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check HEPS's competition here
MUSA vs EVGO Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, EVGO has a market cap of 862.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while EVGO trades at $2.74.
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 16.21, whereas EVGO's P/E ratio is -7.37. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to EVGO's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EVGO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EVGO's competition here
MUSA vs ODP Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, ODP has a market cap of 843.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while ODP trades at $28.00.
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 16.21, whereas ODP's P/E ratio is 133.33. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to ODP's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to ODP. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ODP's competition here
MUSA vs OSTK Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, OSTK has a market cap of 768M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas OSTK's P/E ratio is -4.64. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to OSTK's ROE of -0.91%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to OSTK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check OSTK's competition here
MUSA vs WOOF Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, WOOF has a market cap of 719.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while WOOF 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 16.21, whereas WOOF's P/E ratio is -256.00. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to WOOF's ROE of -0.00%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to WOOF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check WOOF's competition here
MUSA vs BWMX Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BWMX has a market cap of 696.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BWMX trades at $18.75.
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 16.21, whereas BWMX's P/E ratio is 38.90. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BWMX's ROE of +0.87%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BWMX. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BWMX's competition here
MUSA vs BBW Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BBW has a market cap of 689.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BBW trades at $49.10.
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 16.21, whereas BBW's P/E ratio is 12.12. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BBW's ROE of +0.39%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBW's competition here
MUSA vs ARKO Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, ARKO has a market cap of 676.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while ARKO trades at $5.88.
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 16.21, whereas ARKO's P/E ratio is 55.18. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to ARKO's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to ARKO. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ARKO's competition here
MUSA vs HZO Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, HZO has a market cap of 628.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while HZO trades at $27.90.
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 16.21, whereas HZO's P/E ratio is -11.02. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, 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.Check HZO's competition here
MUSA vs ZKH Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, ZKH has a market cap of 591.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while ZKH 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 16.21, whereas ZKH's P/E ratio is -18.25. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to ZKH's ROE of -0.06%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to ZKH. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check ZKH's competition here
MUSA vs TDUP Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, TDUP has a market cap of 581.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while TDUP 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 16.21, whereas TDUP's P/E ratio is -24.42. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to TDUP's ROE of -0.63%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to TDUP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TDUP's competition here
MUSA vs LE Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, LE has a market cap of 578M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while LE trades at $17.24.
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 16.21, whereas LE's P/E ratio is 51.14. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to LE's ROE of +0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to LE. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LE's competition here
MUSA vs BYON Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BYON has a market cap of 567.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BYON trades at $9.88.
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 16.21, whereas BYON's P/E ratio is -2.42. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BYON's ROE of -0.91%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BYON. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BYON's competition here
MUSA vs JMIA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, JMIA has a market cap of 567M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while JMIA trades at $8.62.
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 16.21, whereas JMIA's P/E ratio is -18.52. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to JMIA's ROE of -1.34%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to JMIA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check JMIA's competition here
MUSA vs DADA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, DADA has a market cap of 506.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas DADA's P/E ratio is -1.80. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to DADA's ROE of -0.34%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DADA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DADA's competition here
MUSA vs YSG Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, YSG has a market cap of 389M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while YSG trades at $4.27.
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 16.21, whereas YSG's P/E ratio is -5.53. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to YSG's ROE of -0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to YSG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check YSG's competition here
MUSA vs BBBY Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BBBY has a market cap of 362M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BBBY trades at $5.03.
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 16.21, whereas BBBY's P/E ratio is -1.88. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BBBY's ROE of -0.94%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BBBY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BBBY's competition here
MUSA vs BNED Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BNED has a market cap of 284.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BNED trades at $8.20.
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 16.21, whereas BNED's P/E ratio is 11.36. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BNED's ROE of -0.03%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BNED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BNED's competition here
MUSA vs FTCH Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, FTCH has a market cap of 254.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas FTCH's P/E ratio is -0.28. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to FTCH's ROE of +0.86%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to FTCH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check FTCH's competition here
MUSA vs HNST Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, HNST has a market cap of 253.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while HNST trades at $2.25.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas HNST's P/E ratio is 37.83. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to HNST's ROE of +0.04%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to HNST. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check HNST's competition here
MUSA vs LOGC Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, LOGC has a market cap of 215.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while LOGC trades at $7.93.
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 16.21, whereas LOGC's P/E ratio is -12.71. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to LOGC's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to LOGC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LOGC's competition here
MUSA vs QRTEA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, QRTEA has a market cap of 213.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas QRTEA's P/E ratio is -0.51. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to QRTEA's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QRTEA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QRTEA's competition here
MUSA vs FLWS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, FLWS has a market cap of 208.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while FLWS trades at $3.17.
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 16.21, whereas FLWS's P/E ratio is -0.99. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to FLWS's ROE of -0.78%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to FLWS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check FLWS's competition here
MUSA vs DIBS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, DIBS has a market cap of 198.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while DIBS trades at $5.26.
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 16.21, whereas DIBS's P/E ratio is -11.06. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to DIBS's ROE of -0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DIBS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DIBS's competition here
MUSA vs BZUN Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BZUN has a market cap of 159.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BZUN trades at $2.71.
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 16.21, whereas BZUN's P/E ratio is -5.75. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BZUN's ROE of -0.05%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BZUN. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BZUN's competition here
MUSA vs VLTA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, VLTA has a market cap of 150M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas VLTA's P/E ratio is -1.30. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to VLTA's ROE of -0.71%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to VLTA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check VLTA's competition here
MUSA vs CHPT Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, CHPT has a market cap of 145.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while CHPT trades at $6.04.
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 16.21, whereas CHPT's P/E ratio is -0.58. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to CHPT's ROE of -2.57%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to CHPT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CHPT's competition here
MUSA vs BARK Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BARK has a market cap of 140M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BARK trades at $0.77.
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 16.21, whereas BARK's P/E ratio is -4.26. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BARK's ROE of -0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to BARK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BARK's competition here
MUSA vs JMG Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, JMG has a market cap of 134.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while JMG trades at $6.61.
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 16.21, whereas JMG's P/E ratio is 44.07. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to JMG's ROE of -0.14%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to JMG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check JMG's competition here
MUSA vs QRTEP Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, QRTEP has a market cap of 130M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas QRTEP's P/E ratio is 120.21. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to QRTEP's ROE of +1.84%. 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.Check QRTEP's competition here
MUSA vs GOED Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, GOED has a market cap of 129.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas GOED's P/E ratio is 1.81. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to GOED's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to GOED. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check GOED's competition here
MUSA vs QVCGB Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, QVCGB has a market cap of 127.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while QVCGB trades at $20.00.
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 16.21, whereas QVCGB's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to QVCGB's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to QVCGB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QVCGB's competition here
MUSA vs NPT Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, NPT has a market cap of 122M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while NPT trades at $5.61.
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 16.21, whereas NPT's P/E ratio is -137.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to NPT's ROE of +0.47%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to NPT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check NPT's competition here
MUSA vs AKA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, AKA has a market cap of 113.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while AKA trades at $10.86.
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 16.21, whereas AKA's P/E ratio is -4.29. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to AKA's ROE of -0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to AKA. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check AKA's competition here
MUSA vs APRN Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, APRN has a market cap of 100M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas APRN's P/E ratio is -0.70. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to APRN's ROE of -1.93%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to APRN. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check APRN's competition here
MUSA vs HOUR Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, HOUR has a market cap of 69.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while HOUR trades at $1.99.
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 16.21, whereas HOUR's P/E ratio is 65.67. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to HOUR's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to HOUR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check HOUR's competition here
MUSA vs GRWG Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, GRWG has a market cap of 65.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while GRWG trades at $1.10.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas GRWG's P/E ratio is -1.64. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to GRWG's ROE of -0.36%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to GRWG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check GRWG's competition here
MUSA vs CGTL Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, CGTL has a market cap of 55.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while CGTL trades at $2.78.
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 16.21, whereas CGTL's P/E ratio is -4.56. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to CGTL's ROE of -0.75%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CGTL. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CGTL's competition here
MUSA vs QRTEB Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, QRTEB has a market cap of 51.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas QRTEB's P/E ratio is -2.82. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to QRTEB's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QRTEB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QRTEB's competition here
MUSA vs CTIB Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, CTIB has a market cap of 48.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas CTIB's P/E ratio is -26.67. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to CTIB's ROE of -0.15%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to CTIB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check CTIB's competition here
MUSA vs QVCGP Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, QVCGP has a market cap of 45.9M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while QVCGP trades at $5.61.
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 16.21, whereas QVCGP's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to QVCGP's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QVCGP. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QVCGP's competition here
MUSA vs SPWH Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, SPWH has a market cap of 45.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while SPWH 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 16.21, whereas SPWH's P/E ratio is -1.24. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to SPWH's ROE of -0.17%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SPWH. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SPWH's competition here
MUSA vs PRTS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, PRTS has a market cap of 44.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while PRTS trades at $0.66.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas PRTS's P/E ratio is -0.74. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to PRTS's ROE of -0.76%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to PRTS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check PRTS's competition here
MUSA vs NHTC Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, NHTC has a market cap of 38.2M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while NHTC trades at $3.30.
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 16.21, whereas NHTC's P/E ratio is -41.50. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to NHTC's ROE of -0.03%. 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.Check NHTC's competition here
MUSA vs KIRK Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, KIRK has a market cap of 37.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while KIRK trades at $1.66.
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 16.21, whereas KIRK's P/E ratio is -1.02. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to KIRK's ROE of +0.97%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to KIRK. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check KIRK's competition here
MUSA vs QVCGA Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, QVCGA has a market cap of 36.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while QVCGA trades at $4.37.
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 16.21, whereas QVCGA's P/E ratio is -0.01. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to QVCGA's ROE of +1.84%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to QVCGA. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check QVCGA's competition here
MUSA vs SSU Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, SSU has a market cap of 36.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas SSU's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to SSU's ROE of -1.09%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SSU. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SSU's competition here
MUSA vs BGFV Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BGFV has a market cap of 33M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while BGFV trades at $1.44.
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 16.21, whereas BGFV's P/E ratio is -0.34. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BGFV's ROE of -0.56%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to BGFV. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check BGFV's competition here
MUSA vs DTC Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, DTC has a market cap of 31.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while DTC trades at $19.55.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas DTC's P/E ratio is -0.23. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to DTC's ROE of -0.93%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to DTC. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check DTC's competition here
MUSA vs TLF Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, TLF has a market cap of 25M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while TLF trades at $3.10.
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 16.21, whereas TLF's P/E ratio is 2.56. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to TLF's ROE of +0.20%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to TLF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TLF's competition here
MUSA vs LITB Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, LITB has a market cap of 24.5M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while LITB trades at $2.68.
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 16.21, whereas LITB's P/E ratio is 11.17. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to LITB's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to LITB. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check LITB's competition here
MUSA vs MI Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, MI has a market cap of 23.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while MI trades at $5.00.
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 16.21, whereas MI's P/E ratio is -1.12. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to MI's ROE of -0.01%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to MI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check MI's competition here
MUSA vs TBHC Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, TBHC has a market cap of 23.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while TBHC 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 16.21, whereas TBHC's P/E ratio is -1.04. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to TBHC's ROE of +0.97%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to TBHC. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TBHC's competition here
MUSA vs MOGU Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, MOGU has a market cap of 21M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while MOGU trades at $2.41.
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 16.21, whereas MOGU's P/E ratio is 5.77. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to MOGU's ROE of -0.10%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to MOGU. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check MOGU's competition here
MUSA vs LGCB Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, LGCB has a market cap of 17.3M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while LGCB trades at $1.79.
To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.
MUSA currently has a P/E ratio of 16.21, whereas LGCB's P/E ratio is -1.34. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to LGCB's ROE of -0.88%. 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.Check LGCB's competition here
MUSA vs JBDI Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, JBDI has a market cap of 14.4M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while JBDI trades at $0.76.
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 16.21, whereas JBDI's P/E ratio is -5.36. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to JBDI's ROE of -0.25%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is more volatile compared to JBDI. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check JBDI's competition here
MUSA vs BOXD Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, BOXD has a market cap of 14M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, 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 16.21, whereas BOXD's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to BOXD's ROE of +0.45%. 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.Check BOXD's competition here
MUSA vs SBDS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, SBDS has a market cap of 10.7M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while SBDS trades at $6.85.
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 16.21, whereas SBDS's P/E ratio is -0.13. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to SBDS's ROE of -1.00%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to SBDS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check SBDS's competition here
MUSA vs TCS Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, TCS has a market cap of 9.1M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while TCS trades at $2.65.
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 16.21, whereas TCS's P/E ratio is -0.09. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to TCS's ROE of -0.49%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to TCS. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check TCS's competition here
MUSA vs EVGOW Comparison February 2026
MUSA plays a significant role within the Consumer Cyclical sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.
Comparing market capitalization, MUSA stands at 7.3B. In comparison, EVGOW has a market cap of 7.8M. Regarding current trading prices, MUSA is priced at $387.63, while EVGOW trades at $0.06.
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 16.21, whereas EVGOW's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, MUSA's ROE is +0.74%, compared to EVGOW's ROE of +0.21%. Regarding short-term risk, MUSA is less volatile compared to EVGOW. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for MUSA.Check EVGOW's competition here