Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to ConocoPhillips
How ConocoPhillips stacks up
COP · against 16 other Energy companies of similar size
Valuation
54/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #8 of 17 · scores higher than 50% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score6 peers with a valuation score of 50–59, including COP · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 54?
Weighted metrics compared with all Energy companies.Its metrics sit close to the Energy norm.
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 5.4% vs peer median 5.2%
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 5.8% vs peer median 6.2%
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 14.0% vs peer median 12.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = COP, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | COP | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 17 reported | 5.2% | 7.0% | 25% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 17 reported | 14.2% | 11.3% | 63% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 13 reported | 5.8% | 7.9% | 25% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 16 reported | 37.7% | 36.6% | 53% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around COP| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.14T HKD (≈$146.3B) | 98 | 79 | |
| 2 | 108.0B USD | 79 | 55 | |
| 3 | 135.8B USD | 76 | 60 | |
| 4 | 297.1B USD | 69 | 53 | |
| 5 | 204.7B USD | 65 | 44 | |
| 6 | 120.0B USD | 59 | 62 | |
| 7 | 89.1B USD | 55 | 59 | |
| 8 | 934.4B HKD (≈$119.6B) | 54 | 58 | |
| 8 | 173.5B USD | 54 | 65 | |
| 10 | 122.6B USD | 52 | 32 | |
| 11 | 110.5B USD | 50 | 61 | |
| 12 | 111.6B USD | 43 | 70 | |
| 13 | 109.0B USD | 35 | 58 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score