Murphy USA holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and profitability. GameStop still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Murphy USA is in better shape — its trend is intact while GameStop's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Murphy USA's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the Russell 1000 universe, making them directly comparable.
The lead is spread across growth and stability, rather than sitting in one isolated gap. Murphy USA Inc. leads by 12 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Specialty Retail
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. GME and MUSA share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how GameStop and Murphy USA each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Murphy USA Inc. still looks stronger, and the price setup does not materially undermine that lead.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where GME and MUSA each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
Profitability still favours GameStop, with a 8.2-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The growth edge is decisive, but profitability still pushes back — the result holds, but not without a real counterweight.
Break down the GME vs MUSA comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how GME and MUSA 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.