Structurally, BP p.l.c and Marathon Petroleum are closely matched — neither holds a meaningful edge overall. Marathon Petroleum still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Marathon Petroleum carries the stronger setup — intact trend against BP p.l.c's broken trend.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (BP.L: STOXX 600, MPC: Russell 1000).
On valuation, the clearer edge sits with Marathon Petroleum Corporation, while the broader score remains level.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue growth trajectory and margin trend.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
BP p.l.c. looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Marathon Petroleum Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where BP.L and MPC each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The peer-relative valuation gap is wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
On the market side, Marathon Petroleum carries the stronger trend while BP p.l.c's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
The lead is built on both valuation and growth — though valuation still provides a counterweight.
Break down the BP.L vs MPC comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how BP.L and MPC each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.