Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
$2.3B
$3.3B
$3.3B
$4.2B
$5.0B
$4.7B
$2.9B
$1.9B
$2.1B
$2.7B
$2.3B
$1.9B
$2.1B
$2.5B
$3.0B
$2.5B
$2.4B
$2.9B
$3.6B
—
20-quarter listed-company comparison
Oil & Gas Midstream Stocks
Oil & Gas Midstream: Energy Transfer LP owns the largest revenue base; Cmb.Tech NV has the fastest current growth.
01 · the industry itself · before any single company
How has Oil & Gas Midstream moved against S&P 500?
The line below covers up to 5.2 years and opens on the 5Y view; the buttons cut it shorter. Over the most recent two of them this industry is 11% ahead of S&P 500. Earnings across its companies fell 3% on average over the last four reported quarters.
BASING · +2 joined~Moving with the index6 of 47 companies ahead of S&P 500 by 5% or more over three months
RS — · 44/47 >200d (+0) · 6/47 lead (+2) · EPS 28/46↑
Oil & Gas Midstream, equal-weighted, based at 200
S&P 500, same base, same start
trailing 12-month earnings per share rising
falling
Oil & Gas Midstream, equal-weighted, based at 200
S&P 500, same base, same start
trailing 12-month earnings per share rising
falling
Oil & Gas Midstream, equal-weighted, based at 200
S&P 500, same base, same start
trailing 12-month earnings per share rising
falling
Both lines start at 200 in the same week, so the distance between them is the whole story: the industry line is an equal-weighted index of its 47 companies. The bars underneath are trailing 12-month earnings per share, one bar per reported quarter, each member rebased to 100 at the start and the industry taking the median — so a price line pulling away from flat bars is a re-rating, not earnings. A bar turns red when that figure is lower than the quarter before. Rules are fixed and applied identically everywhere on this site: ahead by 5% or more over three months, or behind by 20% or more over a year while earnings grew 20% or more. Hover any point to read both values and the gap. This is a description of what the numbers did, not advice.
02 · sector relative strength, before individual stocks
Is Oil & Gas Midstream outperforming S&P 500?
Oil & Gas Midstream has outperformed S&P 500 by 12.8% over the last 52 weeks. Over 13 weeks the gap is a shortfall of 0.5%. 16 of 29 covered companies currently beat the S&P 500 on Mansfield relative strength, so leadership inside the sector is selective. International Seaways, Inc. is the strongest against the sector itself at +23.7%.
-0.5%Sector vs S&P 500 · 13 weeks
+12.8%Sector vs S&P 500 · 52 weeks
16/29Stocks leading S&P 500
8/29Stocks leading sector
Sector metric: — as of latest available · unclassified · direction unavailable.
The central tension: the companies with the most scale are not necessarily the companies creating the most change.
Start with scale. Then earnings trajectory. Then business quality. Only after those three agree should price leadership carry much weight.
Bottom line
Oil & Gas Midstream has outperformed S&P 500 by 12.8% over 52 weeks and 0.5% over 13 weeks. 16 of 29 covered companies beat the S&P 500 on Mansfield relative strength, while 8 of 29 beat the sector itself. Energy Transfer LP leads with revenue of $92,287 million, based on 22 of 30 comparable companies through Mar 2026.
Companies
30
complete canonical membership
Combined market value
$957.8B
Enbridge Inc.
Revenue growing
18/22
positive TTM year-on-year growth
Beating S&P 500
16/29
positive Mansfield relative strength
Comparing 5 of 30
03 · research priority, made explicit
4-Factor Sector Score
An additive sector-relative research score. The four displayed point contributions always equal the total: Growth & earnings (35), Capital efficiency (25), Valuation (20), and Relative strength (20). Missing or stale evidence is absorbed inside the affected factor, never applied as a hidden adjustment.
Growth & earnings · 35%Capital efficiency · 25%Valuation · 20%Relative strength · 20%
Frontline plc has the strongest current balance of earnings trajectory, business quality, valuation and price confirmation, with 81.1% evidence confidence.
Western Midstream Partners, LP looks inexpensive relative to peers or its own history, but its earnings trajectory has not yet earned the valuation signal.
Venture Global, Inc. has stronger price confirmation than earnings confirmation; that is a research prompt, not permission to chase.
How this score is built, and what the marks mean
Missing observations are not scored as bad. Their missing weight lowers confidence and pulls the final score toward neutral. PEG is not shown when the ratio cannot mean anything: the company must be making a profit, its price-to-earnings must be positive, and its three-year earnings growth must fall between 5% and 60%. Dividing a price multiple by a loss, or by growth measured off a tiny base, produces a number that looks precise and tells you nothing. Under relative strength, one mark per week shows the last 12 weeks: a mark is filled where the company led S&P 500 by 5% or more over the 13 weeks ending that week, which is the same test used everywhere on this site. Price stage places the company on the same six-step curve the sector itself is placed on — basing, turning, breaking out, leader, fading, asleep — read from how many weeks running it has led S&P 500 and whether that lead is widening or shrinking. It describes where the PRICE stands, not the earnings trajectory and not a recommendation, and it is left blank for a company whose weekly history is too short or too stale to read.
| Company | Score | Price stage | Growth & earnings/35 | Capital efficiency/25 | Valuation/20 | Relative strength/20 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Frontline plcFRO | 75.0/100Favorable setup81% evidence | ASLEEP | 29.1/35 Revenue 18.5% · PAT 100% · OPM change 60.1 pp 83% evidence | 16.9/25 ROCE 10.8% · OPM 81.9% 76% evidence | 15.4/20 P/E 8.6× · PEG 0.19 65% evidence | 13.6/20 RS sector 12.8% · RS bench 17.7% · 1Y 103.6%3 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 29.1 + 16.9 + 15.4 + 13.6 = 75 · Decision use: Confirmed research leader: earnings, capital efficiency and relative strength agree. Move to management, catalyst and risk diligence. | ||||||
| 2International Seaways, Inc.INSW | 73.9/100Favorable setup81% evidence | FADING | 26.9/35 Revenue 14.5% · PAT 69.3% · OPM change 57.6 pp 83% evidence | 16.5/25 ROCE 11.2% · OPM 89.9% 76% evidence | 16.4/20 P/E 6.6× · PEG 0.09 65% evidence | 14.1/20 RS sector 23.7% · RS bench 29% · 1Y 116%7 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 26.9 + 16.5 + 16.4 + 14.1 = 73.9 · Decision use: Confirmed research leader: earnings, capital efficiency and relative strength agree. Move to management, catalyst and risk diligence. | ||||||
| 3BW LPG LimitedBWLP | 68.7/100Favorable setup81% evidence | TURNING | 24.3/35 Revenue 5.1% · PAT 31.4% · OPM change 23.6 pp 83% evidence | 15.3/25 ROCE 8% · OPM 26.2% 76% evidence | 15.2/20 P/E 7.3× · PEG 0.28 65% evidence | 13.9/20 RS sector 12.1% · RS bench 17.6% · 1Y 44.9%6 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 24.3 + 15.3 + 15.2 + 13.9 = 68.7 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 4Cmb.Tech NVCMBT | 64.5/100Mixed-positive evidence71% evidence | FADING | 24.5/35 Revenue 100% · PAT 12.5% · OPM change 40.9 pp 83% evidence | 13.2/25 ROCE 5.8% · OPM 84.6% 76% evidence | 11.2/20 P/E 7.9× · PEG — 15% evidence | 15.6/20 RS sector 13.3% · RS bench 18.8% · 1Y 75.5%6 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 24.5 + 13.2 + 11.2 + 15.6 = 64.5 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 5Targa Resources Corp.TRGP | 60.9/100Mixed-positive evidence81% evidence | BREAKING OUT | 21.2/35 Revenue 1.1% · PAT 44.2% · OPM change 8.8 pp 83% evidence | 12.9/25 ROCE 3.9% · OPM 20.7% 76% evidence | 12.6/20 P/E 25.6× · PEG 0.45 65% evidence | 14.2/20 RS sector 6.2% · RS bench 11.1% · 1Y 59.3%3 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 21.2 + 12.9 + 12.6 + 14.2 = 60.9 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 6Scorpio Tankers Inc.STNG | 58.7/100Thin evidence · provisional58% evidence | ASLEEP | 23.1/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change 42 pp 45% evidence | 15.3/25 ROCE 9.8% · OPM 70.2% 76% evidence | 11.5/20 P/E 4.3× · PEG — 15% evidence | 8.8/20 RS sector -1.4% · RS bench 3.5% · 1Y 67.2%1 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 23.1 + 15.3 + 11.5 + 8.8 = 58.7 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
| 7Venture Global, Inc.VG | 55.6/100Mixed-positive evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 17.1/35 Revenue 100% · PAT 81.5% · OPM change -12.3 pp 83% evidence | 9.3/25 ROCE 2.4% · OPM 25% 76% evidence | 14.8/20 P/E 17.5× · PEG 0.14 65% evidence | 14.4/20 RS sector -1.5% · RS bench 3.1% · 1Y 4%5 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 17.1 + 9.3 + 14.8 + 14.4 = 55.6 · Decision use: Price leads the evidence: RS versus the benchmark is 3.1%, but earnings trajectory is weak. Wait for revenue and profit confirmation. | ||||||
| 8Western Midstream Partners, LPWES | 55.3/100Mixed-positive evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 14.5/35 Revenue 11.4% · PAT -6.5% · OPM change -2.9 pp 83% evidence | 14.2/25 ROCE 3.8% · OPM 41.8% 76% evidence | 15.2/20 P/E 13.5× · PEG 0.17 65% evidence | 11.4/20 RS sector -4.1% · RS bench 1.7% · 1Y 22.5%3 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 14.5 + 14.2 + 15.2 + 11.4 = 55.3 · Decision use: Cheap but unconfirmed: require improving earnings before treating the valuation as an opportunity. | ||||||
| 9Enterprise Products Partners L.P.EPD | 54.1/100Thin evidence · provisional58% evidence | ASLEEP | 22.4/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change 1.8 pp 45% evidence | 14.0/25 ROCE 7.2% · OPM 13.2% 76% evidence | 10.9/20 P/E 12.7× · PEG — 15% evidence | 6.8/20 RS sector -6.8% · RS bench -1.5% · 1Y 21.2%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 22.4 + 14 + 10.9 + 6.8 = 54.1 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
| 10Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.PAA | 51.9/100Mixed-positive evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 17.1/35 Revenue -7.1% · PAT 45.4% · OPM change 0.1 pp 83% evidence | 6.9/25 ROCE 1.7% · OPM 3.2% 76% evidence | 12.7/20 P/E 18.5× · PEG 0.49 65% evidence | 15.2/20 RS sector 1.1% · RS bench 6.4% · 1Y 31.9%4 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 17.1 + 6.9 + 12.7 + 15.2 = 51.9 · Decision use: Price leads the evidence: RS versus the benchmark is 6.4%, but earnings trajectory is weak. Wait for revenue and profit confirmation. | ||||||
| 11South Bow CorporationSOBO | 49.2/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | ASLEEP | 13.4/35 Revenue -4.6% · PAT 44.5% · OPM change -3.1 pp 83% evidence | 10.3/25 ROCE 1.7% · OPM 32.6% 76% evidence | 13.5/20 P/E 16.4× · PEG 0.36 65% evidence | 12.0/20 RS sector -0.8% · RS bench 4.5% · 1Y 32%3 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 13.4 + 10.3 + 13.5 + 12 = 49.2 · Decision use: Cheap but unconfirmed: require improving earnings before treating the valuation as an opportunity. | ||||||
| 12Golar LNG LimitedGLNG | 48.6/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | ASLEEP | 27.9/35 Revenue 81.5% · PAT 100% · OPM change 76.5 pp 83% evidence | 11.7/25 ROCE 2.7% · OPM 81.8% 76% evidence | 4.3/20 P/E 42.3× · PEG 2.76 65% evidence | 4.7/20 RS sector -6.1% · RS bench -1.3% · 1Y 22.2%2 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 27.9 + 11.7 + 4.3 + 4.7 = 48.6 · Decision use: Acceleration candidate, not a confirmed leader: earnings are strong but sector-relative strength is -6.1% and the one-year return is 22.2%. Do not upgrade until sector-relative strength is above zero and another reported period confirms growth. | ||||||
| 13Pembina Pipeline CorporationPBA | 48.2/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 13.0/35 Revenue -6.5% · PAT -12.8% · OPM change 2.7 pp 83% evidence | 11.3/25 ROCE 2.3% · OPM 37.3% 76% evidence | 13.2/20 P/E 23.4× · PEG 0.33 65% evidence | 10.7/20 RS sector -3.4% · RS bench 2% · 1Y 36.3%3 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 13 + 11.3 + 13.2 + 10.7 = 48.2 · Decision use: Cheap but unconfirmed: require improving earnings before treating the valuation as an opportunity. | ||||||
| 14Hess Midstream LPHESM | 48.1/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 13.0/35 Revenue 7% · PAT 3.6% · OPM change -1.1 pp 83% evidence | 15.4/25 ROCE 5.8% · OPM 61% 76% evidence | 12.2/20 P/E 13.4× · PEG 1.01 65% evidence | 7.5/20 RS sector -8.1% · RS bench -2.7% · 1Y -3.3%1 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 13 + 15.4 + 12.2 + 7.5 = 48.1 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 15Excelerate Energy, Inc.EE | 46.9/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | BREAKING OUT | 14.2/35 Revenue 39.4% · PAT -6.8% · OPM change -2 pp 83% evidence | 10.4/25 ROCE 2.5% · OPM 18.9% 76% evidence | 4.1/20 P/E 27.2× · PEG 3.91 65% evidence | 18.2/20 RS sector 4.8% · RS bench 10.3% · 1Y 61.2%4 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 14.2 + 10.4 + 4.1 + 18.2 = 46.9 · Decision use: Price leads the evidence: RS versus the benchmark is 10.3%, but earnings trajectory is weak. Wait for revenue and profit confirmation. | ||||||
| 16Kinetik Holdings Inc.KNTK | 46.4/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | ASLEEP | 16.2/35 Revenue 9.3% · PAT 100% · OPM change -5.2 pp 83% evidence | 5.1/25 ROCE -0.1% · OPM -0.9% 76% evidence | 13.9/20 P/E 19.8× · PEG 0.27 65% evidence | 11.2/20 RS sector -3.3% · RS bench 1.9% · 1Y 17.9%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 16.2 + 5.1 + 13.9 + 11.2 = 46.4 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 17Antero Midstream CorporationAM | 46.3/100Thin evidence · provisional58% evidence | ASLEEP | 16.3/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change -0.9 pp 45% evidence | 14.4/25 ROCE 3.1% · OPM 60% 76% evidence | 9.3/20 P/E 27.1× · PEG — 15% evidence | 6.3/20 RS sector -7.5% · RS bench -2.5% · 1Y 18.5%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 16.3 + 14.4 + 9.3 + 6.3 = 46.3 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
| 18The Williams Companies, Inc.WMB | 46.2/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | ASLEEP | 21.6/35 Revenue 10.7% · PAT 22.3% · OPM change 7.7 pp 83% evidence | 12.8/25 ROCE 2.5% · OPM 43.6% 76% evidence | 8.6/20 P/E 31.9× · PEG 1.46 65% evidence | 3.2/20 RS sector -9.2% · RS bench -4.2% · 1Y 23.5%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 21.6 + 12.8 + 8.6 + 3.2 = 46.2 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 19ONEOK, Inc.OKE | 45.3/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | ASLEEP | 18.6/35 Revenue 41% · PAT 12.1% · OPM change -0.4 pp 83% evidence | 10.7/25 ROCE 2.4% · OPM 14.8% 76% evidence | 8.9/20 P/E 16.1× · PEG 1.68 65% evidence | 7.1/20 RS sector -7.4% · RS bench -2.3% · 1Y 17.7%1 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 18.6 + 10.7 + 8.9 + 7.1 = 45.3 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 20Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.CQP | 45.1/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 11.2/35 Revenue 21% · PAT 2.5% · OPM change -17.6 pp 83% evidence | 9.0/25 ROCE 2.4% · OPM 10% 76% evidence | 13.5/20 P/E 15.1× · PEG 0.48 65% evidence | 11.4/20 RS sector -3.8% · RS bench 1.6% · 1Y 21.1%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 11.2 + 9 + 13.5 + 11.4 = 45.1 · Decision use: Cheap but unconfirmed: require improving earnings before treating the valuation as an opportunity. | ||||||
| 21Kinder Morgan, Inc.KMI | 45.1/100Thin evidence · provisional58% evidence | ASLEEP | 21.2/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change 2.9 pp 45% evidence | 10.8/25 ROCE 2% · OPM 29.9% 76% evidence | 9.7/20 P/E 20.5× · PEG — 15% evidence | 3.4/20 RS sector -11% · RS bench -6% · 1Y 16.7%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 21.2 + 10.8 + 9.7 + 3.4 = 45.1 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
| 22Energy Transfer LPET | 45.0/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 14.9/35 Revenue 12.5% · PAT -9.5% · OPM change -1.2 pp 83% evidence | 10.8/25 ROCE 2.5% · OPM 10.7% 76% evidence | 9.3/20 P/E 16.1× · PEG 1.67 65% evidence | 10.0/20 RS sector -5.2% · RS bench 0.3% · 1Y 17.7%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 14.9 + 10.8 + 9.3 + 10 = 45 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 23MPLX LPMPLX | 43.5/100Mixed-negative evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 11.1/35 Revenue 3.1% · PAT 5.8% · OPM change -4.1 pp 83% evidence | 13.4/25 ROCE 2.8% · OPM 36.1% 76% evidence | 9.0/20 P/E 12.4× · PEG 1.84 65% evidence | 10.0/20 RS sector -6.4% · RS bench -0.7% · 1Y 20%1 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 11.1 + 13.4 + 9 + 10 = 43.5 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 24Plains GP Holdings, L.P.PAGP | 43.1/100Mixed-negative evidence64% evidence | TURNING | 13.2/35 Revenue -7.1% · PAT — · OPM change 0.1 pp 62% evidence | 4.3/25 ROCE 1.6% · OPM 3.2% 76% evidence | 9.5/20 P/E 25× · PEG — 15% evidence | 16.1/20 RS sector 1.9% · RS bench 7.2% · 1Y 32.3%5 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 13.2 + 4.3 + 9.5 + 16.1 = 43.1 · Decision use: Price leads the evidence: RS versus the benchmark is 7.2%, but earnings trajectory is weak. Wait for revenue and profit confirmation. | ||||||
| 25TC Energy CorporationTRP | 40.1/100Thin evidence · provisional58% evidence | ASLEEP | 18.0/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change 1.7 pp 45% evidence | 8.7/25 ROCE 1.6% · OPM 47.5% 76% evidence | 9.0/20 P/E 28.2× · PEG — 15% evidence | 4.4/20 RS sector -6.8% · RS bench -1.7% · 1Y 32.4%3 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 18 + 8.7 + 9 + 4.4 = 40.1 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
| 26DT Midstream, Inc.DTM | 39.9/100Thin evidence · provisional58% evidence | ASLEEP | 18.4/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change 0.6 pp 45% evidence | 11.2/25 ROCE 1.8% · OPM 49.4% 76% evidence | 8.7/20 P/E 32.1× · PEG — 15% evidence | 1.6/20 RS sector -9.8% · RS bench -4.8% · 1Y 28.9%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 18.4 + 11.2 + 8.7 + 1.6 = 39.9 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
| 27Viper Energy, Inc.VNOM | 35.5/100Mixed-negative evidence71% evidence | BASING | 12.0/35 Revenue 84.3% · PAT -121.9% · OPM change -13.8 pp 83% evidence | 12.4/25 ROCE 2.8% · OPM 49.5% 76% evidence | 10.4/20 P/E 15.8× · PEG — 15% evidence | 0.7/20 RS sector -13.9% · RS bench -9.1% · 1Y 12%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 12 + 12.4 + 10.4 + 0.7 = 35.5 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 28Enbridge Inc.ENB | 34.6/100Thin evidence · provisional58% evidence | BASING | 15.9/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change -5.4 pp 45% evidence | 7.3/25 ROCE 1.4% · OPM 14.4% 76% evidence | 8.9/20 P/E 29.7× · PEG — 15% evidence | 2.5/20 RS sector -11.6% · RS bench -6.5% · 1Y 13.7%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 15.9 + 7.3 + 8.9 + 2.5 = 34.6 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
| 29Cheniere Energy, Inc.LNG | 32.4/100Adverse evidence81% evidence | TURNING | 8.3/35 Revenue 20.8% · PAT -37.2% · OPM change -77.1 pp 83% evidence | 3.8/25 ROCE -8.8% · OPM -59.4% 76% evidence | 10.5/20 P/E 46.7× · PEG 0.9 65% evidence | 9.8/20 RS sector -6.4% · RS bench -1.2% · 1Y 11.5%0 of 12 weeks ahead 100% evidence |
| Exact sum: 8.3 + 3.8 + 10.5 + 9.8 = 32.4 · Decision use: Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction. | ||||||
| 30SunocoCorp LLCSUNC | 51.4/100Thin evidence · provisional23% evidence | BREAKING OUT | 18.4/35 Revenue — · PAT — · OPM change 2.3 pp 10% evidence | 13.0/25 ROCE 6.8% · OPM 8.1% 76% evidence | 10.0/20 P/E — · PEG — 0% evidence | 10.0/20 RS sector — · RS bench — · 1Y —5 of 12 weeks ahead 0% evidence |
| Exact sum: 18.4 + 13 + 10 + 10 = 51.4 · Decision use: Fill the missing evidence before acting; the ranking is deliberately pulled toward neutral. | ||||||
Showing 10 of 30 companies
04 · what price has already done
Market action
International Seaways, Inc. has the strongest one-year price move in Oil & Gas Midstream at +116%. It also leads on Mansfield relative strength against the S&P 500 at +29%. 16 of 29 covered companies are above zero on that measure. Every line covers 314 weekly closes through 2026-08-04.
Price and relative strength
Every company, the sector's own index and S&P 500 all start level on the left edge of the window, so only the distance between the lines counts — the highest line has risen the most since then, and the chart at the top of this page is drawn the same way. It opens on one year; the buttons beside it stretch that to three or five.
How far ahead of or behind S&P 500 each company has been running, measured against its own recent average of that comparison, so the flat line at zero IS S&P 500: above it the company is beating the market, below it the market is beating the company. It opens on one year.
The same measure taken against Oil & Gas Midstream itself instead of the whole market, so the flat line at zero is the sector: above it the company is beating its own peers, which is the sharper test of the two. It opens on one year.
05 · compare level, then change
Revenue Scale & Growth Durability
Energy Transfer LP has the highest Revenue among the 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies compared here, at $92,287 million. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is next at $45,254 million. Cmb.Tech NV has the highest Revenue growth at the 100% top of the scoring scale, so level and change sit with different companies.
What the numbers say: Energy Transfer LP is the scale leader at $92,287 million, 103.9% ahead of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.. Cmb.Tech NV's growth is stored at the ≥100% scoring cap; the uncapped TTM change is 108.7% from a $1,951 million base, with 19 reported observations in the 20-quarter window. Treat the growth leader as an acceleration candidate, not as equally proven scale.
LeaderEnergy Transfer LP · $92,287 million
Gap103.9% versus #2 · Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
Persistence4/8 recent comparable periods
Coverage22/30 companies · 538 observations
Investor read: Energy Transfer LP is the scale benchmark; Cmb.Tech NV is the acceleration watch. Promote the challenger only if growth persists and converts into margin and returns.
This conclusion weakens if: Energy Transfer LP's growth falls below Cmb.Tech NV's for two consecutive comparable reports while operating margin also compresses.
Revenue is compared on a common reported-currency basis. Growth is year-on-year, so seasonality does not masquerade as progress.
Revenuelargest
Revenue growthfastest growers
Revenue · company comparison
22/30 level · 22/30 change
On every company-comparison chart on this page: solid lines show level, dotted lines show change when “Both” is selected, and a missing report breaks the line rather than being invented.
All-company data · latest reported quarter
In every all-company table on this page, each figure is the company’s latest single reported quarter. The rankings above them use trailing-twelve-month or current-market values, so a company can legitimately show a different number in each.
| Company | Revenue | Revenue growth | Reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy Transfer LP ET | $27.8B | 32% | Mar 2026 |
| Enbridge Inc. ENB | $22.4B | 21% | Jun 2026 |
| Enterprise Products Partners L.P. EPD | $14.4B | -6.7% | Jun 2026 |
| Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. PAA | $12.5B | 8.7% | Mar 2026 |
| Plains GP Holdings, L.P. PAGP | $12.5B | 8.7% | Mar 2026 |
| SunocoCorp LLC SUNC | $10.7B | 106% | Mar 2026 |
| ONEOK, Inc. OKE | $9.6B | 20% | Mar 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy, Inc. LNG | $5.9B | 7.8% | Mar 2026 |
| Kinder Morgan, Inc. KMI | $4.8B | 14% | Jun 2026 |
| Venture Global, Inc. VG | $4.6B | 59% | Mar 2026 |
| Targa Resources Corp. TRGP | $4.1B | -10% | Mar 2026 |
| TC Energy Corporation TRP | $3.9B | 6.6% | Jun 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. CQP | $3.6B | 20% | Mar 2026 |
| The Williams Companies, Inc. WMB | $3.0B | -0.6% | Mar 2026 |
| MPLX LP MPLX | $2.9B | -2.8% | Mar 2026 |
| Pembina Pipeline Corporation PBA | $2.1B | -7.7% | Mar 2026 |
| Western Midstream Partners, LP WES | $1.1B | 23% | Mar 2026 |
| BW LPG Limited BWLP | $839M | -2.7% | Mar 2026 |
| Frontline plc FRO | $714M | 67% | Mar 2026 |
| Cmb.Tech NV CMBT | $520M | 121% | Mar 2026 |
| Viper Energy, Inc. VNOM | $511M | 109% | Mar 2026 |
| South Bow Corporation SOBO | $491M | -1.4% | Mar 2026 |
| Excelerate Energy, Inc. EE | $433M | 37% | Mar 2026 |
| Kinetik Holdings Inc. KNTK | $410M | -7.5% | Mar 2026 |
| Hess Midstream LP HESM | $390M | 2.1% | Mar 2026 |
| DT Midstream, Inc. DTM | $336M | 11% | Jun 2026 |
| International Seaways, Inc. INSW | $325M | 78% | Mar 2026 |
| Antero Midstream Corporation AM | $314M | 7.9% | Jun 2026 |
| Scorpio Tankers Inc. STNG | $313M | 46% | Jun 2026 |
| Golar LNG Limited GLNG | $138M | 119% | Mar 2026 |
Full 20-quarter history · every available company
Revenue · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 30 companies with a series here. The remaining 18 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
$3.2B
$6.6B
$7.5B
$8.0B
$8.9B
$9.1B
$7.3B
$4.1B
$4.2B
$4.8B
$4.3B
$3.3B
$3.8B
$4.4B
$5.4B
$4.6B
$4.4B
$5.5B
$5.9B
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
$11.5B
$12.5B
$15.1B
$13.2B
$11.6B
$13.4B
$12.1B
$10.4B
$9.8B
$11.3B
$11.0B
$11.3B
$14.9B
$16.2B
$18.5B
$14.9B
$14.6B
$17.2B
$22.4B
—
Energy Transfer LP · ET
$16.7B
$18.7B
$20.5B
$25.9B
$22.9B
$20.5B
$19.0B
$18.3B
$20.7B
$20.5B
$21.6B
$20.7B
$20.8B
$19.5B
$21.0B
$19.2B
$20.0B
$25.3B
$27.8B
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
$10.8B
$11.4B
$13.0B
$16.1B
$15.5B
$13.7B
$12.4B
$10.7B
$12.0B
$14.6B
$14.8B
$13.5B
$13.8B
$14.2B
$15.4B
$11.4B
$12.0B
$13.8B
$14.4B
—
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
$3.8B
$4.4B
$4.3B
$5.2B
$5.2B
$4.6B
$3.9B
$3.5B
$3.9B
$4.0B
$3.8B
$3.6B
$3.7B
$4.0B
$4.2B
$4.0B
$4.1B
$4.5B
$4.8B
—
MPLX LP · MPLX
$2.5B
$2.6B
$2.5B
$2.8B
$3.3B
$2.5B
$2.6B
$2.5B
$2.8B
$2.8B
$2.7B
$2.7B
$2.8B
$2.9B
$2.9B
$2.8B
$2.9B
$3.1B
$2.9B
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
$4.5B
$5.4B
$5.4B
$6.0B
$5.9B
$5.0B
$4.5B
$3.7B
$4.2B
$5.2B
$4.8B
$4.9B
$5.0B
$7.0B
$8.0B
$7.9B
$8.6B
$9.1B
$9.6B
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
$4.5B
$5.4B
$5.0B
$6.1B
$5.4B
$4.6B
$4.5B
$3.4B
$3.9B
$4.2B
$4.6B
$3.6B
$3.9B
$4.4B
$4.6B
$4.3B
$4.2B
$4.1B
$4.1B
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
$3.2B
$3.6B
$3.5B
$3.6B
$3.8B
$4.0B
$3.9B
$3.8B
$3.9B
$3.5B
$3.5B
$3.3B
$3.4B
$3.6B
$3.6B
$3.7B
$3.7B
$4.2B
$3.9B
—
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
$2.5B
$3.3B
$2.5B
$2.5B
$3.0B
$2.9B
$3.1B
$2.5B
$2.6B
$2.8B
$2.8B
$2.3B
$2.7B
$2.7B
$3.0B
$2.8B
$2.9B
$3.2B
$3.0B
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$1.1B
$1.6B
$1.4B
$1.1B
$926M
$1.5B
$2.9B
$3.1B
$3.3B
$4.4B
$4.6B
—
Revenue growth · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 30 companies with a series here. The remaining 18 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
—
—
—
121%
114%
45%
-12%
-54%
-57%
-43%
-21%
-2.0%
-3.4%
-8.4%
30%
30%
17%
18%
20%
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
—
—
—
165%
177%
39%
-2.3%
-49%
-53%
-47%
-42%
-21%
-9.5%
-8.0%
28%
43%
18%
23%
7.8%
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
—
—
—
21%
0.9%
7.2%
-20%
-21%
-15%
-16%
-8.6%
8.7%
51%
44%
68%
31%
-1.6%
5.9%
21%
—
Energy Transfer LP · ET
—
—
—
72%
38%
9.9%
-7.3%
-29%
-9.6%
0.2%
14%
13%
0.2%
-4.8%
-2.8%
-7.2%
-3.9%
30%
32%
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
—
—
—
70%
43%
20%
-4.3%
-34%
-22%
7.1%
19%
27%
15%
-2.9%
4.5%
-16%
-13%
-2.9%
-6.7%
—
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
—
—
—
64%
35%
3.5%
-9.4%
-32%
-25%
-12%
-1.2%
2.0%
-5.3%
-1.3%
10%
13%
12%
13%
14%
—
MPLX LP · MPLX
—
—
—
21%
33%
-4.5%
2.7%
-10%
-16%
11%
4.3%
7.2%
2.5%
3.1%
9.3%
3.9%
4.5%
7.1%
-2.8%
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
—
—
—
77%
30%
-7.2%
-17%
-38%
-29%
4.0%
5.8%
31%
20%
34%
68%
61%
72%
30%
20%
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
—
—
—
77%
20%
-16%
-8.8%
-44%
-27%
-6.9%
0.9%
4.6%
-1.2%
3.9%
0.0%
20%
7.8%
-7.9%
-10%
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
—
—
—
14%
17%
13%
12%
5.3%
3.7%
-13%
-11%
-13%
-15%
2.1%
3.3%
13%
10%
17%
6.6%
—
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
—
—
—
9.1%
22%
-10%
22%
-0.3%
-15%
-5.0%
-10%
-5.9%
3.7%
-1.5%
10%
19%
10%
17%
-0.6%
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-12%
-6.6%
105%
180%
260%
192%
59%
—
06 · compare level, then change
Operating Economics & Margin Trend
International Seaways, Inc. has the highest OPM among the 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies compared here, at 89.9%. Cmb.Tech NV is next at 84.6%. Golar LNG Limited has the highest Margin change at +76.5 percentage points, so level and change sit with different companies. 30 of 30 companies report a comparable reading, the latest through Mar 2026.
What the numbers say: International Seaways, Inc. leads opm at 89.9%; Golar LNG Limited leads margin change at +76.5 percentage points.
LeaderInternational Seaways, Inc. · 89.9%
Gap6.3% versus #2 · Cmb.Tech NV
Persistence2/8 recent comparable periods
Coverage30/30 companies · 538 observations
Investor read: International Seaways, Inc. sets the level benchmark; use the change leader as an inflection watch only after another comparable report confirms it.
This conclusion weakens if: The next two comparable reports reverse the current margin change signal.
Operating margin compares operating profit with revenue. Improvement is measured in percentage points, not percentage growth.
OPMhighest
Margin changefastest expanders
Operating margin · company comparison
30/30 level · 30/30 change
All-company data · latest reported quarter
| Company | OPM | Margin change | Reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| International Seaways, Inc. INSW | 90% | +57.6 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Cmb.Tech NV CMBT | 85% | +40.9 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Frontline plc FRO | 82% | +60.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Golar LNG Limited GLNG | 82% | +76.5 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Scorpio Tankers Inc. STNG | 70% | +42.0 pp | Jun 2026 |
| Hess Midstream LP HESM | 61% | −1.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Antero Midstream Corporation AM | 60% | −0.9 pp | Jun 2026 |
| Viper Energy, Inc. VNOM | 50% | −13.8 pp | Mar 2026 |
| DT Midstream, Inc. DTM | 49% | +0.6 pp | Jun 2026 |
| TC Energy Corporation TRP | 48% | +1.7 pp | Jun 2026 |
| The Williams Companies, Inc. WMB | 44% | +7.7 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Western Midstream Partners, LP WES | 42% | −2.9 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Pembina Pipeline Corporation PBA | 37% | +2.7 pp | Mar 2026 |
| MPLX LP MPLX | 36% | −4.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| South Bow Corporation SOBO | 33% | −3.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Kinder Morgan, Inc. KMI | 30% | +2.9 pp | Jun 2026 |
| BW LPG Limited BWLP | 26% | +23.6 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Venture Global, Inc. VG | 25% | −12.3 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Targa Resources Corp. TRGP | 21% | +8.8 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Excelerate Energy, Inc. EE | 19% | −2.0 pp | Mar 2026 |
| ONEOK, Inc. OKE | 15% | −0.4 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Enbridge Inc. ENB | 14% | −5.4 pp | Jun 2026 |
| Enterprise Products Partners L.P. EPD | 13% | +1.8 pp | Jun 2026 |
| Energy Transfer LP ET | 11% | −1.2 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. CQP | 10% | −17.6 pp | Mar 2026 |
| SunocoCorp LLC SUNC | 8.1% | +2.3 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. PAA | 3.2% | +0.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Plains GP Holdings, L.P. PAGP | 3.2% | +0.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Kinetik Holdings Inc. KNTK | -0.9% | −5.2 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy, Inc. LNG | -59% | −77.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
Full 20-quarter history · every available company
OPM · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 30 companies with a series here. The remaining 18 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
27%
22%
11%
13%
-6.0%
59%
73%
42%
46%
41%
38%
40%
40%
33%
28%
29%
29%
51%
10%
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
-73%
6.7%
-8.2%
18%
-34%
74%
109%
56%
66%
51%
27%
49%
44%
39%
18%
55%
41%
70%
-59%
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
12%
17%
16%
12%
15%
-4.0%
22%
23%
18%
16%
25%
20%
15%
15%
20%
15%
16%
16%
14%
—
Energy Transfer LP · ET
8.6%
9.1%
9.0%
8.1%
8.6%
8.8%
11%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
12%
12%
12%
11%
8.2%
11%
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
14%
12%
13%
11%
11%
13%
14%
15%
14%
13%
12%
13%
13%
14%
11%
16%
14%
15%
13%
—
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
22%
22%
24%
20%
18%
24%
31%
29%
24%
27%
32%
29%
27%
28%
27%
29%
26%
30%
30%
—
MPLX LP · MPLX
38%
37%
38%
36%
47%
37%
41%
41%
36%
43%
41%
40%
40%
41%
40%
40%
38%
43%
36%
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
15%
12%
12%
12%
12%
15%
33%
20%
18%
21%
22%
25%
23%
22%
15%
18%
18%
17%
15%
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
8.2%
-1.7%
6.0%
7.5%
8.0%
12%
19%
19%
13%
15%
14%
18%
19%
16%
12%
24%
20%
23%
21%
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
40%
46%
28%
40%
39%
44%
48%
42%
40%
44%
46%
41%
41%
41%
46%
43%
43%
45%
48%
—
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
14%
29%
26%
19%
27%
37%
44%
35%
39%
39%
37%
30%
32%
29%
36%
34%
38%
33%
44%
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
29%
45%
44%
33%
20%
39%
37%
34%
40%
39%
25%
—
Margin change · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 30 companies with a series here. The remaining 18 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
—
—
—
−18.7 pp
−32.5 pp
+36.4 pp
+62.1 pp
+29.0 pp
+52.4 pp
−17.5 pp
−34.9 pp
−1.9 pp
−6.2 pp
−8.0 pp
−10.5 pp
−11.3 pp
−11.2 pp
+17.5 pp
−17.6 pp
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
—
—
—
+13.6 pp
+39.3 pp
+67.2 pp
+117.5 pp
+37.9 pp
+100.3 pp
−23.4 pp
−82.2 pp
−7.5 pp
−22.4 pp
−11.3 pp
−9.4 pp
+5.7 pp
−2.9 pp
+30.6 pp
−77.1 pp
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
—
—
—
−5.1 pp
+3.3 pp
−20.8 pp
+6.0 pp
+11.0 pp
+2.8 pp
+20.3 pp
+2.6 pp
−2.4 pp
−3.3 pp
−1.2 pp
−4.8 pp
−4.7 pp
+0.6 pp
+0.8 pp
−5.4 pp
—
Energy Transfer LP · ET
—
—
—
−2.5 pp
0.0 pp
−0.3 pp
+1.9 pp
+1.9 pp
+2.2 pp
+1.7 pp
+0.1 pp
+1.1 pp
−0.3 pp
+1.2 pp
+0.9 pp
+0.9 pp
+0.3 pp
−3.5 pp
−1.2 pp
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
—
—
—
−4.8 pp
−2.9 pp
+0.6 pp
+1.1 pp
+3.8 pp
+3.0 pp
+0.2 pp
−1.6 pp
−1.7 pp
−1.2 pp
+0.8 pp
−0.9 pp
+2.7 pp
+1.1 pp
+0.8 pp
+1.8 pp
—
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
—
—
—
+43.8 pp
−4.1 pp
+2.6 pp
+6.8 pp
+9.9 pp
+6.0 pp
+3.2 pp
+1.1 pp
−0.3 pp
+3.4 pp
+0.5 pp
−4.8 pp
−0.6 pp
−1.8 pp
+2.5 pp
+2.9 pp
—
MPLX LP · MPLX
—
—
—
−1.5 pp
+9.2 pp
0.0 pp
+2.9 pp
+4.9 pp
−11.2 pp
+6.8 pp
−0.5 pp
−0.4 pp
+3.8 pp
−2.8 pp
−0.5 pp
−0.5 pp
−1.5 pp
+2.4 pp
−4.1 pp
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
—
—
—
−6.5 pp
−2.9 pp
+3.0 pp
+20.9 pp
+8.2 pp
+5.8 pp
+6.0 pp
−10.8 pp
+5.4 pp
+4.9 pp
+1.4 pp
−7.1 pp
−7.0 pp
−4.5 pp
−5.5 pp
−0.4 pp
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
—
—
—
+0.3 pp
−0.2 pp
+13.8 pp
+12.5 pp
+11.6 pp
+5.0 pp
+2.9 pp
−4.5 pp
−1.5 pp
+5.9 pp
+0.9 pp
−2.1 pp
+6.7 pp
+1.3 pp
+6.7 pp
+8.8 pp
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
—
—
—
−3.8 pp
−1.0 pp
−2.8 pp
+20.4 pp
+1.8 pp
+1.7 pp
0.0 pp
−2.1 pp
−0.5 pp
+0.5 pp
−3.0 pp
0.0 pp
+2.4 pp
+2.0 pp
+4.9 pp
+1.7 pp
—
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
—
—
—
−7.3 pp
+12.8 pp
+7.8 pp
+18.2 pp
+16.0 pp
+11.7 pp
+2.4 pp
−7.6 pp
−5.2 pp
−7.2 pp
−10.1 pp
−0.6 pp
+4.2 pp
+6.3 pp
+3.9 pp
+7.7 pp
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
−8.9 pp
−6.2 pp
−6.3 pp
+0.7 pp
+19.3 pp
−0.3 pp
−12.3 pp
—
07 · compare level, then change
Profit Scale & Acceleration
Energy Transfer LP has the highest Net profit among the 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies compared here, at $5,964 million. MPLX LP is next at $4,738 million. Frontline plc has the highest Profit growth at the 100% top of the scoring scale, so level and change sit with different companies.
What the numbers say: Energy Transfer LP leads with $5,964 million of TTM profit, 25.9% above MPLX LP. Frontline plc shows ≥100% on the scoring scale (160.1% uncapped) growth from a $905 million profit base. Compare the size of the base and persistence before ranking acceleration above profit scale.
LeaderEnergy Transfer LP · $5,964 million
Gap25.9% versus #2 · MPLX LP
Persistence4/8 recent comparable periods
Coverage22/30 companies · 538 observations
Investor read: Energy Transfer LP sets the level benchmark; use the change leader as an inflection watch only after another comparable report confirms it.
This conclusion weakens if: The next two comparable reports reverse the current profit growth signal.
Net profit is the residual after operating costs, interest and tax. Growth off a loss or near-zero base is excluded from the fastest-grower rank.
Net profitlargest
Profit growthfastest growers
Net profit · company comparison
22/30 level · 21/30 change
All-company data · latest reported quarter
| Company | Net profit | Profit growth | Reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy Transfer LP ET | $2.0B | 15% | Mar 2026 |
| Enbridge Inc. ENB | $1.8B | -29% | Jun 2026 |
| Enterprise Products Partners L.P. EPD | $1.5B | 6.4% | Jun 2026 |
| TC Energy Corporation TRP | $1.2B | -2.0% | Jun 2026 |
| Kinder Morgan, Inc. KMI | $1.0B | 35% | Jun 2026 |
| MPLX LP MPLX | $922M | -19% | Mar 2026 |
| The Williams Companies, Inc. WMB | $912M | 25% | Mar 2026 |
| ONEOK, Inc. OKE | $776M | 12% | Mar 2026 |
| Venture Global, Inc. VG | $625M | 21% | Mar 2026 |
| Frontline plc FRO | $559M | 1,594% | Mar 2026 |
| Pembina Pipeline Corporation PBA | $498M | -0.8% | Mar 2026 |
| Targa Resources Corp. TRGP | $487M | 74% | Mar 2026 |
| Cmb.Tech NV CMBT | $369M | 823% | Mar 2026 |
| Western Midstream Partners, LP WES | $359M | 13% | Mar 2026 |
| Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. PAA | $334M | -12% | Mar 2026 |
| International Seaways, Inc. INSW | $286M | 472% | Mar 2026 |
| Scorpio Tankers Inc. STNG | $216M | 272% | Jun 2026 |
| Viper Energy, Inc. VNOM | $215M | 41% | Mar 2026 |
| BW LPG Limited BWLP | $187M | 179% | Mar 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. CQP | $186M | -71% | Mar 2026 |
| Hess Midstream LP HESM | $158M | -1.9% | Mar 2026 |
| DT Midstream, Inc. DTM | $134M | 21% | Jun 2026 |
| Antero Midstream Corporation AM | $118M | -2.5% | Jun 2026 |
| SunocoCorp LLC SUNC | $110M | -47% | Mar 2026 |
| Plains GP Holdings, L.P. PAGP | $103M | -140% | Mar 2026 |
| Golar LNG Limited GLNG | $102M | 685% | Mar 2026 |
| South Bow Corporation SOBO | $77M | -13% | Mar 2026 |
| Excelerate Energy, Inc. EE | $50M | -3.9% | Mar 2026 |
| Kinetik Holdings Inc. KNTK | $-5M | -126% | Mar 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy, Inc. LNG | $-3.4B | -611% | Mar 2026 |
Full 20-quarter history · every available company
Net profit · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 30 companies with a series here. The remaining 18 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
$381M
$507M
$159M
$342M
$-514M
$2.5B
$1.9B
$622M
$791M
$906M
$682M
$570M
$635M
$623M
$641M
$553M
$506M
$1.3B
$186M
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
$-916M
$-1.1B
$-781M
$913M
$-2.6B
$5.1B
$6.4B
$1.7B
$2.1B
$1.8B
$839M
$1.2B
$1.2B
$1.3B
$668M
$1.9B
$1.3B
$2.9B
$-3.4B
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
$814M
$2.0B
$2.1B
$607M
$1.4B
$-1.1B
$1.9B
$2.0B
$623M
$1.6B
$1.6B
$2.0B
$1.4B
$618M
$2.5B
$2.3B
$847M
$2.1B
$1.8B
—
Energy Transfer LP · ET
$907M
$1.2B
$1.5B
$1.6B
$1.3B
$1.4B
$1.4B
$1.2B
$1.0B
$1.6B
$1.7B
$2.0B
$1.4B
$1.4B
$1.7B
$1.5B
$1.3B
$1.2B
$2.0B
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
$1.2B
$1.1B
$1.3B
$1.4B
$1.4B
$1.5B
$1.4B
$1.3B
$1.4B
$1.6B
$1.5B
$1.4B
$1.4B
$1.6B
$1.4B
$1.5B
$1.4B
$1.7B
$1.5B
—
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
$511M
$654M
$684M
$653M
$595M
$693M
$703M
$610M
$555M
$618M
$773M
$602M
$651M
$694M
$743M
$742M
$654M
$1.0B
$1.0B
—
MPLX LP · MPLX
$811M
$838M
$833M
$884M
$1.4B
$824M
$952M
$942M
$928M
$1.1B
$1.0B
$1.2B
$1.0B
$1.1B
$1.1B
$1.1B
$1.6B
$1.2B
$922M
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
$392M
$380M
$391M
$414M
$432M
$485M
$1.0B
$468M
$454M
$688M
$639M
$780M
$693M
$1.0B
$691M
$853M
$940M
$978M
$776M
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
$288M
$-249M
$169M
$688M
$279M
$396M
$555M
$388M
$279M
$358M
$333M
$359M
$448M
$414M
$280M
$637M
$487M
$553M
$487M
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
$818M
$1.2B
$400M
$931M
$870M
$-1.4B
$1.3B
$279M
$-173M
$1.6B
$1.4B
$1.1B
$1.7B
$1.2B
$1.2B
$973M
$764M
$1.2B
$1.2B
—
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
$173M
$632M
$392M
$407M
$621M
$697M
$957M
$494M
$684M
$1.2B
$662M
$426M
$741M
$517M
$729M
$583M
$683M
$773M
$912M
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$781M
$-1M
$698M
$352M
$-294M
$990M
$517M
$475M
$550M
$1.2B
$625M
—
Profit growth · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 30 companies with a series here. The remaining 18 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
—
—
—
-13%
-235%
395%
1,117%
82%
—
-64%
-65%
-8.4%
-20%
-31%
-6.0%
-3.0%
-20%
107%
-71%
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
87%
—
-65%
-87%
-32%
-42%
-30%
-20%
63%
7.4%
128%
-611%
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
—
—
—
-60%
70%
-156%
-9.3%
230%
-55%
—
-16%
0.0%
132%
-61%
59%
16%
-41%
245%
-29%
—
Energy Transfer LP · ET
—
—
—
79%
46%
17%
-2.7%
-24%
-21%
9.1%
17%
62%
37%
-7.7%
1.7%
-27%
-9.9%
-14%
15%
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
—
—
—
26%
18%
36%
6.8%
-11%
-3.0%
10%
4.3%
11%
6.1%
1.9%
-5.2%
2.3%
-5.3%
1.7%
6.4%
—
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
—
—
—
—
16%
6.0%
2.8%
-6.6%
-6.7%
-11%
10.0%
-1.3%
17%
12%
-3.9%
23%
0.5%
47%
35%
—
MPLX LP · MPLX
—
—
—
24%
77%
-1.7%
14%
6.6%
-35%
39%
6.6%
26%
13%
-3.1%
12%
-11%
49%
8.5%
-19%
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
—
—
—
21%
10%
28%
168%
13%
5.1%
42%
-39%
67%
53%
45%
8.1%
9.4%
36%
-2.2%
12%
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
—
—
—
344%
-3.1%
—
228%
-44%
0.0%
-9.6%
-40%
-7.5%
61%
16%
-16%
77%
8.7%
34%
74%
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
—
—
—
-8.7%
6.4%
-222%
237%
-70%
-120%
—
3.7%
312%
—
-27%
-16%
-15%
-54%
0.0%
-2.0%
—
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
—
—
—
26%
259%
10%
144%
21%
10%
68%
-31%
-14%
8.3%
-56%
10%
37%
-7.8%
50%
25%
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-138%
—
-26%
35%
—
20%
21%
—
08 · compare level, then change
Return On Capital Employed
International Seaways, Inc. has the highest ROCE among the 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies compared here, at 11.2%. Frontline plc is next at 10.8%. Frontline plc has the highest ROCE change at +9.2 percentage points, so level and change sit with different companies. 30 of 30 companies report a comparable reading, the latest through Mar 2026.
What the numbers say: International Seaways, Inc. leads ROCE at 11.2%, 0.4 percentage points above Frontline plc. Frontline plc has the strongest latest improvement at +9.2 percentage points. Read the leader beside the density of its reported history: a sparse high return is a candidate; a repeated high return is evidence of durability.
LeaderInternational Seaways, Inc. · 11.2%
Gap3.7% versus #2 · Frontline plc
Persistence2/8 recent comparable periods
Coverage30/30 companies · 543 observations
Investor read: International Seaways, Inc. sets the level benchmark; use the change leader as an inflection watch only after another comparable report confirms it.
This conclusion weakens if: The next two comparable reports reverse the current roce change signal.
ROCE asks how much operating return the business earns on the capital employed. Direction matters, but a single exceptional year should not be mistaken for durability.
ROCEhighest
ROCE changefastest improvers
Return on capital · company comparison
30/30 level · 29/30 change
All-company data · latest reported quarter
| Company | ROCE | ROCE change | Reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| International Seaways, Inc. INSW | 11% | +8.7 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Frontline plc FRO | 11% | +9.2 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Scorpio Tankers Inc. STNG | 9.8% | +7.7 pp | Jun 2026 |
| BW LPG Limited BWLP | 8.0% | +7.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Enterprise Products Partners L.P. EPD | 7.2% | +4.2 pp | Jun 2026 |
| SunocoCorp LLC SUNC | 6.8% | — | Mar 2026 |
| Hess Midstream LP HESM | 5.8% | −0.3 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Cmb.Tech NV CMBT | 5.8% | +3.8 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Targa Resources Corp. TRGP | 3.9% | +1.0 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Western Midstream Partners, LP WES | 3.8% | +0.2 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Antero Midstream Corporation AM | 3.1% | −0.2 pp | Jun 2026 |
| MPLX LP MPLX | 2.8% | −0.7 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Viper Energy, Inc. VNOM | 2.8% | −0.3 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Golar LNG Limited GLNG | 2.7% | +2.6 pp | Mar 2026 |
| The Williams Companies, Inc. WMB | 2.5% | +0.2 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Energy Transfer LP ET | 2.5% | +0.2 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Excelerate Energy, Inc. EE | 2.5% | 0.0 pp | Mar 2026 |
| ONEOK, Inc. OKE | 2.4% | −0.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. CQP | 2.4% | −3.0 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Venture Global, Inc. VG | 2.4% | −2.7 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Pembina Pipeline Corporation PBA | 2.3% | −0.2 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Kinder Morgan, Inc. KMI | 2.0% | +0.3 pp | Jun 2026 |
| DT Midstream, Inc. DTM | 1.8% | +0.1 pp | Jun 2026 |
| Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. PAA | 1.7% | +0.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| South Bow Corporation SOBO | 1.7% | −2.0 pp | Mar 2026 |
| TC Energy Corporation TRP | 1.6% | +0.1 pp | Jun 2026 |
| Plains GP Holdings, L.P. PAGP | 1.6% | +0.1 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Enbridge Inc. ENB | 1.4% | +0.2 pp | Jun 2026 |
| Kinetik Holdings Inc. KNTK | -0.1% | −0.4 pp | Mar 2026 |
| Cheniere Energy, Inc. LNG | -8.8% | −11.3 pp | Mar 2026 |
Full 20-quarter history · every available company
ROCE · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 30 companies with a series here. The remaining 18 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
3.4%
4.0%
2.0%
3.3%
-1.8%
16%
12%
5.0%
6.1%
6.5%
5.5%
4.7%
5.1%
5.0%
5.4%
4.6%
4.5%
9.3%
2.4%
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
-6.9%
1.3%
-1.8%
4.4%
-8.8%
19%
22%
6.5%
7.6%
6.6%
3.1%
4.2%
4.3%
4.4%
2.5%
6.4%
4.5%
9.1%
-8.8%
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
0.9%
1.4%
1.6%
1.0%
1.1%
-0.3%
1.7%
1.5%
1.1%
1.1%
1.6%
1.3%
1.3%
1.4%
1.9%
1.2%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
1.4%
Energy Transfer LP · ET
1.6%
1.8%
2.0%
2.3%
2.2%
1.9%
2.2%
2.0%
2.4%
2.2%
2.4%
2.3%
2.1%
2.1%
2.3%
2.1%
1.9%
1.7%
2.5%
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
2.7%
2.5%
3.0%
3.2%
3.1%
3.2%
3.1%
2.8%
3.0%
3.4%
3.2%
3.0%
3.0%
3.3%
3.0%
3.0%
2.7%
3.2%
3.1%
7.2%
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
1.3%
1.4%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.7%
1.9%
1.6%
1.5%
1.7%
1.9%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
2.0%
2.1%
2.0%
MPLX LP · MPLX
2.8%
2.9%
2.8%
3.0%
4.7%
2.8%
3.2%
3.0%
2.9%
3.6%
3.2%
3.2%
3.3%
3.4%
3.5%
3.3%
3.1%
3.6%
2.8%
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
3.1%
3.1%
3.2%
3.3%
3.4%
3.6%
7.0%
3.4%
2.4%
3.5%
3.4%
3.9%
2.6%
3.1%
2.5%
2.9%
2.9%
2.6%
2.4%
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
2.6%
-0.7%
2.3%
3.5%
3.0%
3.8%
5.8%
4.4%
3.0%
3.7%
3.7%
3.5%
4.0%
3.7%
2.9%
5.3%
4.1%
4.4%
3.9%
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
1.4%
1.8%
1.1%
1.6%
1.6%
1.9%
1.9%
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
1.5%
1.2%
1.2%
1.3%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
0.9%
2.2%
1.6%
1.1%
1.9%
2.5%
3.1%
2.0%
2.2%
2.4%
2.2%
1.5%
1.8%
1.7%
2.3%
1.9%
2.2%
2.1%
2.5%
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
0.0%
0.0%
—
—
1.6%
3.7%
—
—
0.6%
1.8%
5.1%
4.8%
3.2%
3.9%
2.4%
—
ROCE change · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 29 companies with a series here. The remaining 17 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
—
—
—
—
−5.2 pp
+11.7 pp
+10.0 pp
+1.7 pp
+7.9 pp
−9.2 pp
−6.5 pp
−0.3 pp
−1.0 pp
−1.5 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.6 pp
+4.3 pp
−3.0 pp
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
—
—
—
—
−1.9 pp
+18.1 pp
+23.9 pp
+2.1 pp
+16.4 pp
−12.8 pp
−19.0 pp
−2.3 pp
−3.3 pp
−2.2 pp
−0.6 pp
+2.2 pp
+0.2 pp
+4.7 pp
−11.3 pp
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
—
—
—
—
+0.2 pp
−1.7 pp
+0.1 pp
+0.5 pp
0.0 pp
+1.4 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.2 pp
+0.2 pp
+0.3 pp
+0.3 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.1 pp
0.0 pp
−0.3 pp
+0.2 pp
Energy Transfer LP · ET
—
—
—
—
+0.6 pp
+0.1 pp
+0.2 pp
−0.3 pp
+0.2 pp
+0.3 pp
+0.2 pp
+0.3 pp
−0.3 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.2 pp
−0.2 pp
−0.4 pp
+0.2 pp
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
—
—
—
—
+0.4 pp
+0.7 pp
+0.1 pp
−0.4 pp
−0.1 pp
+0.2 pp
+0.1 pp
+0.2 pp
0.0 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.2 pp
0.0 pp
−0.3 pp
−0.1 pp
+0.1 pp
+4.2 pp
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
—
—
—
—
+0.2 pp
+0.3 pp
+0.3 pp
0.0 pp
0.0 pp
0.0 pp
0.0 pp
0.0 pp
+0.1 pp
0.0 pp
−0.2 pp
+0.1 pp
0.0 pp
+0.3 pp
+0.4 pp
+0.3 pp
MPLX LP · MPLX
—
—
—
—
+1.9 pp
−0.1 pp
+0.4 pp
0.0 pp
−1.8 pp
+0.8 pp
0.0 pp
+0.2 pp
+0.4 pp
−0.2 pp
+0.3 pp
+0.1 pp
−0.2 pp
+0.2 pp
−0.7 pp
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
—
—
—
—
+0.3 pp
+0.5 pp
+3.8 pp
+0.1 pp
−1.0 pp
−0.1 pp
−3.6 pp
+0.5 pp
+0.2 pp
−0.4 pp
−0.9 pp
−1.0 pp
+0.3 pp
−0.5 pp
−0.1 pp
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
—
—
—
—
+0.4 pp
+4.5 pp
+3.5 pp
+0.9 pp
0.0 pp
−0.1 pp
−2.1 pp
−0.9 pp
+1.0 pp
0.0 pp
−0.8 pp
+1.8 pp
+0.1 pp
+0.7 pp
+1.0 pp
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
—
—
—
—
+0.2 pp
+0.1 pp
+0.8 pp
0.0 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.5 pp
−0.4 pp
−0.4 pp
−0.3 pp
−0.1 pp
0.0 pp
+0.3 pp
+0.2 pp
+0.4 pp
+0.2 pp
+0.1 pp
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
—
—
—
—
+1.0 pp
+0.3 pp
+1.5 pp
+0.9 pp
+0.3 pp
−0.1 pp
−0.9 pp
−0.5 pp
−0.4 pp
−0.7 pp
+0.1 pp
+0.4 pp
+0.4 pp
+0.4 pp
+0.2 pp
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
+1.6 pp
+3.7 pp
—
—
−1.0 pp
−1.9 pp
—
—
+2.6 pp
+2.1 pp
−2.7 pp
—
09 · compare level, then change
Valuation Against Growth & Quality
International Seaways, Inc. has the lowest PEG among the 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies compared here, at 0.09×. Venture Global, Inc. is next at 0.14×. Scorpio Tankers Inc. has the lowest P/E at 4.33×, so level and change sit with different companies. 19 of 30 companies report a comparable reading, the latest through Mar 2026.
What the numbers say: International Seaways, Inc. has the lowest comparable PEG at 0.09×, 35.7% below Venture Global, Inc.. Only 19 of 30 companies have earnings and growth steady enough for the ratio to mean anything, so no broad “cheapest stock” conclusion is defensible unless the current multiple, own-history position and growth durability agree.
LeaderInternational Seaways, Inc. · 0.09×
Gap35.7% versus #2 · Venture Global, Inc.
Persistence0/8 recent comparable periods
Coverage19/30 companies · 116 observations
Investor read: Treat valuation as permission to investigate, never as a standalone reason to buy.
This conclusion weakens if: The next two comparable reports reverse the current p/e signal.
PEG is shown only when earnings are positive and three-year EPS growth is between 5% and 60%. It is recomputed consistently as the trailing P/E divided by that growth rate — reported earnings, never an expected-earnings multiple. On Indian companies it is shown only where the two data feeds agreed. Where any of that fails the ratio is left out rather than printed: a P/E divided by a loss, or by growth measured off a tiny base, is a number that looks precise and means nothing.
PEGlowest PEG
P/Elowest P/E
Valuation · company comparison
19/30 level · 29/30 change
All-company data · latest reported quarter
Full 20-quarter history · every available company
PEG · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 28 companies with a series here. The remaining 16 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.5
—
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.9
—
—
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.5
—
—
—
2.3
—
0.6
2.9
—
Energy Transfer LP · ET
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.4
—
—
—
—
—
0.4
0.9
0.7
1.7
—
—
—
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.5
1.0
2.0
—
—
1.8
1.2
1.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.5
4.5
2.2
3.3
1.2
0.8
—
MPLX LP · MPLX
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.3
0.3
—
—
—
—
0.5
1.1
1.1
—
0.9
0.8
1.8
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
—
—
—
—
1.0
1.4
1.0
—
1.7
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
3.2
0.5
0.7
0.5
—
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.7
—
—
—
—
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.3
0.6
0.3
—
—
—
—
—
6.0
—
1.7
1.5
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.1
—
—
P/E · reported quarter history
Showing the 12 largest of 29 companies with a series here. The remaining 17 are complete in the plain-text rendition and the trace payload — nothing is dropped from the data, only from this grid.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. · CQP
14.3
14.1
25.2
25.5
—
17.4
6.9
6.2
5.3
7.2
10.7
10.4
10.5
12.5
15.9
13.6
14.0
10.3
15.1
—
Cheniere Energy, Inc. · LNG
—
—
—
—
—
26.6
5.0
4.5
3.3
4.2
7.9
9.3
11.5
15.1
16.9
14.2
13.1
8.1
46.7
—
Enbridge Inc. · ENB
17.7
17.2
19.9
22.5
18.9
41.3
44.0
26.5
30.2
16.8
18.5
18.7
18.8
26.1
23.5
21.7
27.4
20.4
25.5
29.7
Energy Transfer LP · ET
5.3
4.4
10.6
8.0
8.2
8.5
9.3
10.6
13.2
12.7
14.4
13.6
11.8
15.3
14.1
14.1
13.7
13.6
16.1
—
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. · EPD
12.2
10.5
12.4
11.0
10.3
9.7
10.2
10.7
11.2
10.5
11.4
11.1
10.9
11.7
12.8
11.6
11.8
12.1
14.0
12.7
Kinder Morgan, Inc. · KMI
21.7
20.3
42.0
15.7
15.1
16.1
15.5
15.5
15.1
16.6
16.7
18.1
19.4
23.4
24.6
24.1
23.2
20.1
22.5
20.5
MPLX LP · MPLX
10.5
10.4
11.2
9.3
8.0
8.8
8.9
8.6
10.2
9.7
10.7
10.3
10.5
11.4
12.4
12.2
10.6
11.1
12.4
—
ONEOK, Inc. · OKE
18.1
17.5
21.0
15.8
14.2
17.1
12.0
11.4
11.6
12.8
18.6
17.8
19.1
19.4
19.4
15.9
13.4
13.6
16.1
—
Targa Resources Corp. · TRGP
37.9
—
—
67.8
56.9
18.9
18.9
20.6
22.4
23.7
23.0
27.1
26.8
31.1
36.9
25.0
22.6
21.7
25.6
—
TC Energy Corporation · TRP
32.3
31.6
21.4
20.8
17.2
84.5
32.7
56.3
—
18.9
20.8
15.7
13.1
15.1
16.1
16.3
23.2
23.1
27.3
28.2
The Williams Companies, Inc. · WMB
31.6
21.0
27.8
24.4
17.5
19.7
15.0
16.0
16.1
13.4
20.1
22.5
23.7
29.7
32.0
31.6
32.7
28.1
31.9
—
Venture Global, Inc. · VG
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
22.9
33.2
18.2
7.9
17.5
—
10 · before the conclusion, check the blind spots
What can make this comparison misleading?
This Oil & Gas Midstream comparison names 4 specific ways its own evidence can mislead, all listed below. All 30 companies here report on comparable dates, so no rank carries a stale marker. A high growth rate can still be a low-base artefact.
Keep these limits visible
- A high growth rate can be a low-base artefact. The page keeps level and change separate for that reason.
- A high ROCE can be temporary or flattered by a small capital base. Read it beside margin, cash conversion and reinvestment.
- The 4-Factor Sector Score ranks research priority, not portfolio action. Management quality, catalysts and risks need equally fresh evidence before capital is deployed.
- An “all companies” line chart preserves completeness, but rank changes should be checked against reporting dates before drawing a conclusion.
11 · evidence and freshness
How was this comparison built?
This comparison is built from the reported filings of 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies, normalized to a common $ scale and a shared quarter axis of up to 20 quarters each. Fundamentals run through Jun 2026 and market data through 2026-08-04. A second data feed fills gaps only after identity and scale reconciliation, and missing observations are never interpolated.
FundamentalsThrough Jun 2026 · up to 20 quarters per company
Market dataThrough 2026-08-04 · weekly price and relative-strength history
Derived metricsGrowth, changes and PEG are calculated only when their inputs are comparable.
Score confidenceMissing and stale evidence reduces confidence and pulls the 0–100 research-priority score toward neutral.
12 · questions investors ask, short speakable answers
Oil & Gas Midstream company comparison FAQs
These 22 answers restate the Oil & Gas Midstream comparison above in question form. Every one is computed from the same 30 companies and the same reported filings as the rankings and charts, current through Jun 2026. Price and relative-strength answers run through 2026-08-04. Nothing here is estimated, and none of it is a recommendation.
Is the Oil & Gas Midstream sector outperforming S&P 500?
Oil & Gas Midstream has outperformed S&P 500 by 12.8% over 52 weeks and 0.5% over 13 weeks. 16 of 29 covered companies beat the S&P 500 on Mansfield relative strength, while 8 of 29 beat the sector itself.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company is largest by revenue?
Energy Transfer LP leads with revenue of $92,287 million, based on 22 of 30 comparable companies through Mar 2026.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company is growing fastest?
Cmb.Tech NV has the fastest current revenue growth at 100%, across 22 of 30 comparable companies.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company has the strongest 4-Factor Sector Score?
Frontline plc ranks first at 75/100 with 81.1% evidence confidence. The score prioritizes research; it is not a buy recommendation.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company has the lowest comparable PEG?
International Seaways, Inc. has the lowest comparable PEG at 0.09, among 19 of 30 companies whose earnings and growth are steady enough for the ratio to mean anything.
How much history does this Oil & Gas Midstream comparison include?
The page compares up to 20 reported quarters per company for fundamentals, returns and valuation, ending Jun 2026. Missing observations remain blank rather than being estimated.
How is the 4-Factor Sector Score calculated?
The four visible contributions add directly: growth and earnings up to 35 points, capital efficiency up to 25, valuation up to 20, and relative strength up to 20. Missing or stale evidence moves only the affected contribution toward neutral.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company is the biggest?
Energy Transfer LP is the largest, with trailing-twelve-month revenue of $92,287 million, ahead of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. at $45,254 million. That covers 22 of 30 companies with comparable reporting through Mar 2026.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company has the best profit margins?
International Seaways, Inc. has the highest operating margin at 89.9%, from 30 of 30 comparable companies. Golar LNG Limited shows the biggest recent improvement, at +76.5 percentage points. A high margin matters most when it is holding or rising, not when it is peaking.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company makes the most profit?
Energy Transfer LP earns the most, at $5,964 million of trailing-twelve-month net profit, from 22 of 30 comparable companies. Frontline plc has the fastest profit growth at 100%, though growth off a small or recovering profit base overstates how much has actually changed.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company earns the highest return on capital?
International Seaways, Inc. leads on return on capital employed at 11.2%, across 30 of 30 companies. Read it beside the length of its reported history: a high return that repeats for years is evidence of a durable business, while a single high reading can be a small capital base or one good year.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream stock is the cheapest?
On PEG — where a LOWER number is cheaper — International Seaways, Inc. screens cheapest at 0.09×. Only 19 of 30 companies have earnings and growth steady enough for the ratio to mean anything, so this is not a sector-wide "cheapest stock" verdict. Cheap on a multiple is a reason to investigate, never a reason to buy on its own.
Is the Oil & Gas Midstream sector beating the market?
Oil & Gas Midstream has outperformed S&P 500 by 12.8% over the last 52 weeks and 0.5% over 13 weeks, measured on an equal-weight index of its current members. Inside the sector, 16 of 29 covered companies are beating the market on their own. Sector strength does not transfer evenly to every stock in it.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream stock has the strongest price momentum?
International Seaways, Inc. has the strongest relative strength against S&P 500. Relative strength answers last, after growth, quality and valuation: price can move well before the fundamentals confirm it, and sometimes without them confirming at all.
Which Oil & Gas Midstream company scores highest for research priority?
Frontline plc scores 75 out of 100 with 81.1% evidence confidence, from 29.1 points on growth and earnings, 16.9 on capital efficiency, 15.4 on valuation and 13.6 on relative strength. This ranks what deserves work next. It is not a buy recommendation, and management quality, catalysts and risk still need separate research.
How many Oil & Gas Midstream companies does this comparison cover, and over what period?
It compares 30 listed companies over up to 20 reported quarters of fundamentals, ending Jun 2026, plus weekly price and relative-strength history. Membership is the full sector list — nothing is dropped for having thin data.
What is the total market cap of the Oil & Gas Midstream sector?
The 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies on this page carry $957,796 million of combined market value. Enbridge Inc. is the largest at $118,758 million, about 12% of the sector's total on its own. Market value moves with price, so this reading is dated 2026-08-04.
What is the Oil & Gas Midstream sector's P/E ratio?
The median price-to-earnings ratio across the 30 Oil & Gas Midstream companies on this page is 17.5×, measured on the 29 that report a comparable figure. A sector-level history for this multiple is not held here, so this is a cross-section of today, not a comparison with the sector’s own past. Figures are as of 2026-08-04.
How is the Oil & Gas Midstream sector performing?
16 of the 29 covered Oil & Gas Midstream companies are beating S&P 500 on Mansfield relative strength. The sector itself is 12.8% ahead of S&P 500 over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of its current members. Readings are as of 2026-08-04.
How many Oil & Gas Midstream stocks are listed in the US?
This comparison covers 30 listed Oil & Gas Midstream companies in the US, each above the size floor the site applies. The full ranked list is on this page, with reported fundamentals through Jun 2026. Membership is the full industry list — nothing is dropped for having thin data.
Why are some values on this page blank?
A blank means that company did not report a comparable figure for that period, so nothing is shown. Missing observations are never interpolated, carried forward, or replaced with a similar-looking accounting line, and a company with missing evidence has its research score pulled toward neutral rather than being scored as bad.
Is this investment advice?
No. Every figure here is a deterministic calculation from reported company filings and market data, published for research. It contains no recommendation to buy or sell any security, does not account for your circumstances, and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed adviser.