PBF Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Delek US Holdings has a net margin of -5.69% compared to PBF Energy's net margin of -6.54%. PBF Energy's return on equity of -17.4% beat Delek US Holdings's return on equity of -88.27%.

PBF Energy has a consensus price target of $18.92, signalling downside risk potential of -13.36%. On the other hand Delek US Holdings has an analysts' consensus of $16.40 which suggests that it could fall by -22.59%. Given that Delek US Holdings has more downside risk than PBF Energy, analysts believe PBF Energy is more attractive than Delek US Holdings.

PBF Energy has a beta of 0.818, which suggesting that the stock is 18.213% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Delek US Holdings has a beta of 0.967, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 3.306%.

PBF Energy has a quarterly dividend of $0.28 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.92%. Delek US Holdings offers a yield of 4.81% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share. PBF Energy pays -22.59% of its earnings as a dividend. Delek US Holdings pays out -11.46% of its earnings as a dividend.

PBF Energy quarterly revenues are $7.1B, which are larger than Delek US Holdings quarterly revenues of $2.6B. PBF Energy's net income of -$401.8M is lower than Delek US Holdings's net income of -$172.7M. Notably, PBF Energy's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x while Delek US Holdings's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PBF Energy is 0.08x versus 0.12x for Delek US Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Marathon Petroleum has a net margin of -5.69% compared to PBF Energy's net margin of -0.24%. PBF Energy's return on equity of -17.4% beat Marathon Petroleum's return on equity of 9.28%.

PBF Energy has a consensus price target of $18.92, signalling downside risk potential of -13.36%. On the other hand Marathon Petroleum has an analysts' consensus of $166.53 which suggests that it could fall by -0.47%. Given that PBF Energy has more downside risk than Marathon Petroleum, analysts believe Marathon Petroleum is more attractive than PBF Energy.

PBF Energy has a beta of 0.818, which suggesting that the stock is 18.213% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Marathon Petroleum has a beta of 0.893, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 10.743%.

PBF Energy has a quarterly dividend of $0.28 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.92%. Marathon Petroleum offers a yield of 2.12% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.91 per share. PBF Energy pays -22.59% of its earnings as a dividend. Marathon Petroleum pays out 33.5% of its earnings as a dividend. Marathon Petroleum's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

PBF Energy quarterly revenues are $7.1B, which are smaller than Marathon Petroleum quarterly revenues of $31.5B. PBF Energy's net income of -$401.8M is lower than Marathon Petroleum's net income of -$74M. Notably, PBF Energy's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x while Marathon Petroleum's PE ratio is 23.55x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PBF Energy is 0.08x versus 0.40x for Marathon Petroleum. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Phillips 66 has a net margin of -5.69% compared to PBF Energy's net margin of 1.6%. PBF Energy's return on equity of -17.4% beat Phillips 66's return on equity of 6.28%.

PBF Energy has a consensus price target of $18.92, signalling downside risk potential of -13.36%. On the other hand Phillips 66 has an analysts' consensus of $130.97 which suggests that it could grow by 9.83%. Given that Phillips 66 has higher upside potential than PBF Energy, analysts believe Phillips 66 is more attractive than PBF Energy.

PBF Energy has a beta of 0.818, which suggesting that the stock is 18.213% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Phillips 66 has a beta of 1.017, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 1.711%.

PBF Energy has a quarterly dividend of $0.28 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.92%. Phillips 66 offers a yield of 3.9% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.20 per share. PBF Energy pays -22.59% of its earnings as a dividend. Phillips 66 pays out 88.9% of its earnings as a dividend. Phillips 66's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

PBF Energy quarterly revenues are $7.1B, which are smaller than Phillips 66 quarterly revenues of $30.4B. PBF Energy's net income of -$401.8M is lower than Phillips 66's net income of $487M. Notably, PBF Energy's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x while Phillips 66's PE ratio is 27.16x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PBF Energy is 0.08x versus 0.36x for Phillips 66. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Valero Energy has a net margin of -5.69% compared to PBF Energy's net margin of -1.97%. PBF Energy's return on equity of -17.4% beat Valero Energy's return on equity of 3.35%.

PBF Energy has a consensus price target of $18.92, signalling downside risk potential of -13.36%. On the other hand Valero Energy has an analysts' consensus of $144.07 which suggests that it could grow by 6.96%. Given that Valero Energy has higher upside potential than PBF Energy, analysts believe Valero Energy is more attractive than PBF Energy.

PBF Energy has a beta of 0.818, which suggesting that the stock is 18.213% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Valero Energy has a beta of 0.995, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 0.482%.

PBF Energy has a quarterly dividend of $0.28 per share corresponding to a yield of 4.92%. Valero Energy offers a yield of 3.27% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.13 per share. PBF Energy pays -22.59% of its earnings as a dividend. Valero Energy pays out 49.96% of its earnings as a dividend. Valero Energy's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

PBF Energy quarterly revenues are $7.1B, which are smaller than Valero Energy quarterly revenues of $30.3B. PBF Energy's net income of -$401.8M is higher than Valero Energy's net income of -$595M. Notably, PBF Energy's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x while Valero Energy's PE ratio is 47.59x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for PBF Energy is 0.08x versus 0.33x for Valero Energy. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.