Martin Midstream Partners L P's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Martin Midstream Partners L P (MMLP) against its publicly traded competitors: sales growth, net income, profitability, valuation and market share, plus each peer's market capitalization, revenue, income and employees. Free below: the top 5 peers. Subscriber access adds the full competitor list and CSV downloads.
Key Findings: Martin Midstream Partners L P vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 744M vs 120,618M combined for tracked competitors (0.6% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+14.8% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+23.5%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Martin Midstream Partners L P generated 18.2% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 45.6% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 1.3% net margin compares with 12.2% for the peer group.
- Scale: Martin Midstream Partners L P ranks #4 of 8 companies by market capitalization in the Oil Refineries industry, holding 1.9% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Martin Midstream Partners L P accounted for 0.6% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 0.7% a year earlier.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
MMLP Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Martin Midstream Partners L P reported revenue growth of 18.22 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 45.62 %.
With a net margin of 1.26 %, Martin Midstream Partners L P reported lower profitability than its competitors (12.21 %).
Martin Midstream Partners L P generated 0.57 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.70 % a year earlier.
Martin Midstream Partners L P vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Revenue growth, year on year
Net margin
Revenue run-rate vs trailing 12 months
TTM net margin
TTM = trailing twelve months. Run-rate annualizes the latest quarter (×4) and compares it to TTM. In millions of $. High-Confidence Competitors are named as a competitor directly in an SEC filing; Similar-Size Competitors are the closest peers by market-cap rank within the same industry; Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors are the closest peers by combined revenue growth, operating margin and ROIC, all independent of the competitor list.
TTM revenue, latest-quarter run-rate and net income/margin benchmarked across Martin Midstream Partners L P and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (3) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (4) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Martin Midstream Partners L P's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Oil Refineries industry grew revenue 29.4% year over year, combined, vs 18.2% for Martin Midstream Partners L P. Martin Midstream Partners L P's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.67% to 0.61%, a loss of 0.06 percentage points.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Competitor Quality Breadth
Share of each group, trailing 12 months: profitable (net margin > 0), expanding (revenue growth > 0), growing faster than the industry's own median, and financially distressed (Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below).
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Competitors combined (4) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (5) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 75.00 % (6 of 8) | 87.50 % (7 of 8) | 62.50 % (5 of 8) | 25.00 % (2 of 8) |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Altman Z-Score is not shown here: it is not populated in the underlying data for any company. Percentages are of companies in each group that report the relevant metric, not of the full group size.
MMLP Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
MMLP Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
MMLP Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Targa Resources Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Plains All American Pipeline Lp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Oneok Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Williams companies inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Martin Midstream Partners L P's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Publicly Traded Peers of Martin Midstream Partners L p
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | 84.92 | 744.17 |
| Williams companies inc | 84,500.50 | 12,204.00 |
| Targa Resources Corp | 59,702.94 | 16,741.50 |
| Oneok Inc | 56,007.84 | 39,366.00 |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | - | 52,306.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 200,296.20 | 121,361.67 |
Sources: Martin Midstream Partners L p's official press releases and regulatory filings; CSIMarket.com's market research; and the financial filings and press releases of the other companies cited.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Martin Midstream Partners L p versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Martin Resource Management Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| If Martin Resource Management Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Martin Midstream Partners L P's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: relationships are extracted from SEC filings (named-competitor disclosures) and corroborating sources. Named by the company = explicitly disclosed as a competitor; Inferred = derived from corroborating signals. Confidence reflects evidence strength.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Business Segment Mix vs Peers
Revenue by operating segment or division, as named and reported by each company. Segment names are the filer's own and are not standardized across companies. Do not assume a same-named or similarly-named segment is defined identically between two companies. Shares are of each company's own total revenue and are not required to sum to 100% (intersegment revenue, unallocated items).| Company | Largest Segment |
|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | Specialty products 38.95 % |
| Williams companies inc | Transmission And Gulf Of Mexico 44.10 % |
| Targa Resources Corp | Logistics and Transportation 81.69 % |
| Oneok Inc | Refined Products and Crude Oil 59.21 % |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | Natural Gas Liquids 0.12 % |
Source: operating segment revenue as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API, leaf-level reportable segments only (parent roll-up segments are excluded where sub-segments are separately disclosed).
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Productivity vs Peers Comparison
Revenue and income per employee, trailing 12 months, in $; market cap in millions of $| Company | Market Cap | Revenue / Employee | Income / Employee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | 85 | - | - |
| Williams companies inc | 84,501 | 2,038,417 | 541,841 |
| Targa Resources Corp | 59,703 | 4,689,496 | 645,602 |
| Oneok Inc | 56,008 | 6,222,890 | 578,723 |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | - | 13,411,795 | 797,949 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 200,211 | 6,097,028 | 622,848 |
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 8 companies in Martin Midstream Partners L P's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Martin Midstream Partners L P ranks #4 of 8 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 1.92 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 3,446, indicating a highly concentrated market structure (U.S. antitrust guidance: below 1,500 unconcentrated, 1,500 to 2,500 moderately concentrated, above 2,500 highly concentrated).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | World Kinect Corporation | 1,830 | 41.65 % |
| 2 | Global Partners Lp | 1,618 | 36.82 % |
| 3 | Crossamerica Partners Lp | 824 | 18.76 % |
| 4 | Martin Midstream Partners L p | 84 | 1.92 % |
| 5 | Tmd Energy Limited | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Cbl International Limited | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Delixy Holdings Limited | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Uni fuels Holdings Limited | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Martin Midstream Partners L P's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-25.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Same-Size Peers & Stock Performance
Peers chosen by closeness in market-cap rank within the same industry classification (not the named-competitor list above). Trailing 12-month total return, 3-month price momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio vs the broad U.S. market.| Rank | Company | Market Cap | TTM Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | World Kinect Corporation | 1,830 | 35.91 % |
| 2 | Global Partners Lp | 1,618 | -5.28 % |
| 3 | Crossamerica Partners Lp | 824 | 0.00 % |
| 4 | Martin Midstream Partners L p | 84 | -30.77 % |
| 5 | Tmd Energy Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 6 | Cbl International Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 7 | Delixy Holdings Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 8 | Uni fuels Holdings Limited | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Martin Midstream Partners L P's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-09-28. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Oil Refineries industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (14 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 53.29 % | 26.92 % (avg) | +26.4 pp |
| Operating Margin | 6.30 % | industry median | +2.9 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 6.05 % | 6.82 % (avg) | -0.8 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 4.11 % | 3.42 % (avg) | +0.7 pp |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. SG&A and R&D as a share of revenue have limited coverage as this data is backfilled and appear only where reported. Higher capital intensity is not inherently negative; it reflects the industry's asset requirements.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Oil Refineries industry average (14 companies, excluding loss-making/negative-equity outliers), alongside returns on capital for context on whether a premium or discount lines up with measurably stronger or weaker returns.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 8.3x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | 12.0x | 7.0x | +5.0x |
| P/B | -1.1x | 1.2x | -2.3x |
| Return on Equity | 16.58 % | industry aggregate | 13.49 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 16.69 % | 0.04 % (avg) | 16.65 % |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. A valuation premium or discount is not, by itself, a judgment of over- or under-valuation. Compare it against the return and growth context shown elsewhere on this page.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 2.81 % | -12.91 % | 0.00 % | 4.17 % | 15.46 % | -21.68 % | -11.32 % | 1.20 % |
| Operating Margin | 4.60 % | 6.86 % | 6.86 % | 6.49 % | 5.03 % | 8.36 % | 8.10 % | 6.83 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 2.82 % | 9.47 % | 22.04 % | 14.27 % | - | - | 16.66 % | 16.09 % |
| P/E | 10.3x | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Source: CSIMarket API, fiscal-year figures. P/E is this company's own historical ratio at each fiscal year end and can swing sharply around an earnings trough: that is real, not a data error.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Martin Midstream Partners L P's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Martin Midstream Partners L P is shown in red; its closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC (the Similar Growth & Profitability group above) are labeled.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Extreme outlier values (from near-zero-revenue companies) are excluded from the plotted cloud but never from the highlighted company or its labeled peers.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Martin Midstream Partners L P's largest competitor by market cap) against industry revenue growth, using the standard textbook thresholds (1.0x share, 10% growth) a common framework, not a precision instrument.
Martin Midstream Partners L P falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.05x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 6.3% (median, trailing 12 months).
Source: CSIMarket API (market-cap share and industry revenue growth). The 10% growth and 1.0x share lines are standard textbook thresholds, not derived from this industry's own distribution. A caveat worth reading alongside this chart: World Kinect Corporation alone holds 42% of this industry's market cap. In an industry this dominated by one leader, the framework will place nearly every OTHER company in "Dog" or "Question Mark" purely because relative share is measured against that leader, regardless of how strong those other companies actually are on their own fundamentals. Check the Profitability, Valuation and Financial Strength sections above before treating this quadrant label as a verdict.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Competitive Forces (Porter's Five Forces)
Only the forces this data can support honestly are shown; the other three are marked as such rather than guessed.| Force | Assessment | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive Rivalry | Low | Industry HHI of 3,446 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | High (capital intensive) | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 4.11 % vs industry average 3.42 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Martin Midstream Partners L P's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Martin Midstream Partners L P's dedicated customers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Threat of Substitutes | - | No systematic data source for cross-product substitution exists in this system; not estimated |
Note: this is a partial, data-grounded application of the framework, not a complete strategic assessment. Rivalry and barriers-to-entry readings are mechanical translations of the HHI and capital-intensity figures shown elsewhere on this page, not independent judgments.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
A CSIMarket composite, not a standard field: each axis is an equal-weighted average of three factors already shown elsewhere on this page (industry growth, industry profitability and rivalry for attractiveness; relative market share, profitability and growth vs industry for strength). Disclosed as a designed methodology, not a precision measurement.
Martin Midstream Partners L P falls in the Medium attractiveness / Medium strength cell: Selective.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Each axis score is a simple 1(low)/2(medium)/3(high) average across its three inputs -- a transparent, disclosed simplification, not a validated academic scoring model.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's SWOT
Every point below is a fixed rule applied to a metric already shown elsewhere on this page (Market Structure, Profitability, Valuation, Run-Rate, Stock Performance, Quality Breadth) not an independent strategic assessment. A blank quadrant means no rule was met, not that none apply.Strengths
- Return on equity 13.5 points above the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+14.8% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
Weaknesses
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.05x).
- Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below, the standard financial-distress signal.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by World Kinect Corporation, holding 41.65 % of industry market cap.
- High capital intensity requires continuous reinvestment just to keep pace with the industry.
Methodology: mechanical, rule-based SWOT. Each bullet reuses a figure already sourced and cited elsewhere on this page; nothing here is generated narrative or independent analyst judgment.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Financial Strength vs Peers Comparison
Quick ratio, working capital, debt to equity and asset turnover, trailing 12 months| Company | Quick Ratio | Working Capital | Debt / Equity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | 0.00 | 1.18 | - |
| Williams companies inc | - | 0.54 | 1.94 |
| Targa Resources Corp | 0.04 | 0.73 | 5.45 |
| Oneok Inc | 0.06 | 0.76 | 1.49 |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | 0.12 | 1.01 | 1.03 |
Quick ratio = cash / current liabilities; working capital ratio = current assets / current liabilities; asset turnover = revenue / total assets. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Revenue and Income Growth vs Peers
Quarterly revenue and net income growth, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Revenue Y/Y | Income Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | Q2 2026 | +18.2 % | - |
| Williams companies inc | Q2 2026 | +9.8 % | +50.3 % |
| Targa Resources Corp | Q2 2026 | +4.2 % | +22.0 % |
| Oneok Inc | Q2 2026 | +52.8 % | +13.4 % |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | Q2 2026 | +66.3 % | +548.1 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +45.4 % | +92.1 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Peers' Costs of Sales and Capital Expenditures
Context for revenue growth: peer costs and capex, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Costs Y/Y | Capex Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | Q2 2026 | +37.0 % | +78.0 % |
| Williams companies inc | Q2 2026 | - | +88.7 % |
| Targa Resources Corp | Q2 2026 | -5.5 % | +11.5 % |
| Oneok Inc | Q2 2026 | +72.4 % | -18.2 % |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | Q2 2026 | +69.7 % | -18.8 % |
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | - | - | - |
| Williams companies inc | 5.53% | 6.55% | 21.49% |
| Targa Resources Corp | 8.78% | 10.59% | 70.39% |
| Oneok Inc | 5.42% | 6.55% | 16.23% |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | 10.45% | 12.11% | 26.11% |
ROA = net income / total assets; ROI = net income / investments; ROE = net income / equity; turnover ratios use trailing 12 month revenue (receivables) and cost of sales (inventory).
Martin Midstream Partners L P's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Martin Midstream Partners L p | - | 0.11 |
| Williams companies inc | 27.48 | 6.92 |
| Targa Resources Corp | 26.52 | 3.57 |
| Oneok Inc | 15.25 | 1.42 |
| Plains All American Pipeline Lp | 17.75 | - |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 16.27 | 1.65 |
P/E = price / diluted EPS (trailing 12 months); PEG = P/E divided by EPS growth; the average row divides the peers' combined market cap by their combined income, sales, cash flow and equity.