Icahn Enterprises L P's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Icahn Enterprises L P (IEP) 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: Icahn Enterprises L P vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 10,603M vs 1,421,819M combined for tracked competitors (0.7% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+12.2% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+28.4%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Icahn Enterprises L P generated 25.6% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 48.0% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -13.0% net margin compares with 12.4% for the peer group.
- Scale: Icahn Enterprises L P ranks #14 of 57 companies by market capitalization in the Auto & Truck Parts industry, holding 1.9% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Icahn Enterprises L P accounted for 0.7% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 0.8% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.78M compares with $3.71M for the peer group (0.2x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
IEP Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Icahn Enterprises L P reported revenue growth of 25.58 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 47.98 %.
With a net margin of -13.04 %, Icahn Enterprises L P reported lower profitability than its competitors (12.38 %).
Icahn Enterprises L P generated 0.65 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.76 % a year earlier.
Icahn Enterprises 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 Icahn Enterprises L P and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (9) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (9) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Icahn Enterprises L P's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Auto & Truck Parts industry grew revenue 4.6% year over year, combined, vs 25.6% for Icahn Enterprises L P. Icahn Enterprises L P's share of combined industry revenue moved from 2.00% to 2.40%, a gain of 0.40 percentage points.
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | No | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (41) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (13) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (10) |
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.
IEP Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
IEP Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
IEP Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blue Dolphin Energy Co | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Valero Energy Corp | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Pbf Energy Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Broadwind Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Marathon Petroleum Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Icahn Enterprises L P's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Icahn Enterprises L P's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
Powertrain. Primary competitors include AGM Automotive, Art Metal, Bergmann, BinZou, Bleistahl, Bosch, Daido, Dana, Dana-Reinz, Delfingen, Denso, DongYang, ElringKlinger, FNOK, Freudenberg, Kaco/Sabo, Kolbenschmidt, Mahle, Miba, NGK, NOK, NPR, Relats, Sinteron, SKF, Taiho, and Vitrica.
Motorparts. Primary competitors include Akebono Brake Corporation, Autolite, Brake Parts Inc., Bosch Group, Centric Parts, Crowne Group LLC, Delphi Automotive LLP, Denso Corporation, Dorman Products, Inc., GRI Engineering and Development LLC (MAT Holdings, Inc.), Mahle GmbH, Mevotech Inc., NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., NTN Bearing Corporation, Neapco Inc., Old World Industries, LLC, Phillips Industries, Pylon Manufacturing Corporation, Rain-X (ITW Global Brands), SKF Group, Osram Sylvania Ltd., The Timken Company, Valeo Group, Dana Corporation (Victor Reinz brand), and ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.
IEH Auto and Pep Boys operate in a highly competitive environment. IEH Auto and Pep Boys encounter competition from national and regional chains, automotive dealerships and from local independent service providers and merchants.
The petroleum business competes primarily on the basis of price, reliability of supply, availability of multiple grades of products and location. The principal competitive factors affecting its refining operations are cost of crude oil and other feedstock costs, refinery complexity, refinery efficiency, refinery product mix and product distribution and transportation costs. The location of the refineries provides the petroleum business with a reliable supply of crude oil and a transportation cost advantage over its competitors. The petroleum business primarily competes against five refineries operated in the mid-continent region. In addition to these refineries, the refineries compete against trading companies, as well as other refineries located outside the region that are linked to the mid-continent market through an extensive product pipeline system. These competitors include refineries located near the Gulf Coast and the Texas panhandle region. The petroleum business refinery competition also includes branded, integrated and independent oil refining companies, such as Phillips 66 Company, HollyFrontier Corporation, CHS Inc., Valero Energy Corporation and Flint Hills Resources LLC.
The nitrogen fertilizer business has experienced and expect to continue to
meet significant levels of competition from current and potential competitors,
many of whom have significantly greater financial and other resources. Competition
in the nitrogen fertilizer industry is dominated by price considerations. However,
during the spring and fall application seasons, farming activities intensify
and delivery capacity is a significant competitive factor. The nitrogen fertilizer
business maintains a large fleet of leased and owned railcars and seasonally
adjusts inventory to enhance its manufacturing and distribution operations.
The nitrogen fertilizer business major competitors include Agrium, Inc.; CF
Industries Holdings, Inc., including its majority owned subsidiary Terra Nitrogen
Company, LP.; Koch Nitrogen Company, LLC; and Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan,
Inc. Domestic competition is intense due to customers sophisticated buying
tendencies and competitor strategies that focus on cost and service. The nitrogen
fertilizer business also encounters competition from producers of fertilizer
products manufactured in foreign countries. In certain cases, foreign producers
of fertilizer who export to the United States may be subsidized by their respective
governments.
The North American railcar manufacturing industry has historically been extremely
competitive. ARI competes primarily with Trinity Industries, Inc. ("Trinity"),
The Greenbrier Companies, Inc., National Steel Car Limited, FreightCar America
Inc. and Union Tank Car Company ("Union Tank"). Competitors have expanded
and may continue to expand their capabilities in ARIs core railcar markets.
The railcar leasing industry has also historically been extremely competitive.
Both ARI and ARL compete primarily with Wells Fargo Rail Corp., GATX Corp.,
CIT Group, Trinity and Union Tank in the railcar leasing market.
Our Gaming segment owns land-based and riverboat casino facilities in six states and one hotel, timeshare and casino resort located on the island of Aruba. Our Gaming segment competes with numerous casinos and casino hotels of varying quality and size in the markets in which its properties are located and with other forms of legalized gaming, including internet gaming, state-sponsored lotteries, racetracks, off-track wagering, video lottery, video poker terminals and card parlors. Our Gaming segment also competes with other non-gaming resorts and vacation areas, and with various other entertainment businesses. The casino entertainment business is characterized by competitors that vary considerably by their size, quality of facilities, number of operations, brand identities, marketing and growth strategies, financial strength and capabilities, level of amenities, management talent and geographic diversity.
In most markets, our Gaming segment competes directly with other casino facilities
operating in the immediate and surrounding market areas, including casinos located
on Native American reservations. In some markets, our Gaming segment faces competition
from nearby markets in addition to direct competition within its market areas.
Our Gaming segment believes competition in existing markets has intensified
over the last several years, due to new markets opening for development, new
properties opening in existing markets, and challenging economic conditions
in certain markets. Many casino operators have invested in expanding existing
facilities, developing new facilities, and acquiring established facilities
in existing markets. The expansion of casino entertainment at existing properties,
the increase in the number of properties and the aggressive marketing strategies
of many of our competitors has increased competition in many markets in which
our Gaming segment competes, and it expects this intense competition to continue.
Our Gaming segments operating results can be adversely affected by costs associated
with advertising, promotions and complimentary services to patrons, the amount
and timing of which may be affected by the advertising and complimentary policies
and actions of its properties competitors and its efforts to keep pace with
them. If our Gaming segments operating revenues are insufficient to allow it
to match the promotions of competitors, the number of its casino patrons may
decline, which may have a material adverse effect on our Gaming segments financial
performance. In addition, some of Gaming segments competitors have significantly
greater financial resources than it does, and as a result our Gaming segment
may not be able to successfully compete with them in the future.
The home fashion industry is fragmented and highly competitive. Future success
will, to a large extent, depend on WPHs ability to be a competitive low-cost
producer. WPH competes with both foreign and domestic companies on, among other
factors, the basis of price, quality, design and customer service. WPH may also
face competition in the future from companies that are currently third-party
suppliers to WPH. Future success depends on the ability to remain competitive
in the areas of marketing, product development, price, quality, brand names,
manufacturing capabilities, distribution and order processing.
Publicly Traded Peers of Icahn Enterprises l p
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | 4,642.86 | 10,603.00 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 678,400.22 | 368,757.00 |
| Chevron Corp | 407,361.69 | 215,261.00 |
| Conocophillips | 153,044.70 | 63,345.00 |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | 115,070.55 | 153,577.00 |
| Valero Energy Corp | 114,533.58 | 139,397.00 |
| SUBTOTAL | 2,131,434.91 | 1,656,456.91 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Icahn Enterprises l p .
Sources: Icahn Enterprises 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 Icahn Enterprises l p versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|
| CF Industries Holdings | Named by the company | 85% |
| National Steel Car Limited | Named by the company | 85% |
| Delphi Automotive LLP | Named by the company | 85% |
| CIT Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Mahle GmbH | Named by the company | 85% |
| Phillips Industries | Named by the company | 85% |
| Valeo Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Valero Energy Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Potash Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Bosch Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| Wells Fargo Rail Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| Development LLC | Named by the company | 85% |
| Neapco Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Osram Sylvania Ltd | Named by the company | 85% |
| HollyFrontier Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Terra Nitrogen Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Akebono Brake Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| FreightCar America Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Denso Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| NGK Spark Plug Co | Named by the company | 85% |
| Mevotech Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Pylon Manufacturing Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Dana Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| Flint Hills Resources LLC | Named by the company | 85% |
| Trinity Industries | Named by the company | 85% |
| Crowne Group LLC | Named by the company | 85% |
| GATX Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
| MAT Holdings | Named by the company | 85% |
| Old World Industries | Named by the company | 85% |
| The Timken Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| CHS Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Koch Nitrogen Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Brake Parts Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Union Tank Car Company | Named by the company | 85% |
| Dorman Products | Named by the company | 85% |
| NTN Bearing Corporation | Named by the company | 85% |
| SKF Group | Named by the company | 85% |
| ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Icahn Enterprises 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.
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | 4,643 | 782,683 | -36,613 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 678,400 | 6,357,879 | 575,414 |
| Chevron Corp | 407,362 | 5,001,533 | 487,116 |
| Conocophillips | 153,045 | 6,398,485 | 936,263 |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | 115,071 | 8,301,459 | 557,351 |
| Valero Energy Corp | 114,534 | 14,208,236 | 777,699 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 2,126,792 | 3,713,444 | 288,320 |
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
Icahn Enterprises L P's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent filing. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Phillips 66 | United States 79.26 % |
| Occidental Petroleum Corporation | Non-US 20.75 % |
| Mosaic Co | United States 39.43 % |
| Enpro Inc | United States 56.79 % |
| Dana Incorporated | North America 58.03 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
Icahn Enterprises L P's Business Segment Mix vs Peers
Revenue by operating segment, 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 |
|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | Energy Segment 89.17 % |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Corporate and Unallocated 0.20 % |
| Chevron Corp | Reportable Segment, Aggregation before Other Operating 99.73 % |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | Refining and Marketing 94.83 % |
| Valero Energy Corp | Refining 95.14 % |
| Phillips 66 | Refining 69.25 % |
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).
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
Icahn Enterprises L P's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 52 companies in Icahn Enterprises L P's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Icahn Enterprises L P ranks #14 of 52 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 1.94 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 1,190, indicating a unconcentrated 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 | Cummins Inc | 72,399 | 30.24 % |
| 2 | Magna International Inc | 18,337 | 7.66 % |
| 3 | Genuine Parts Co | 17,713 | 7.40 % |
| 4 | Borgwarner Inc | 12,741 | 5.32 % |
| 5 | Bwx Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Modine Manufacturing Co | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Allison Transmission Holdings Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Aptiv Plc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Autoliv Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Lear Corp | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 14 | Icahn Enterprises l p | 4,643 | 1.94 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Icahn Enterprises 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 2026-09-28.
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Autoliv Inc | 8,534 | -6.64 % |
| 10 | Lear Corp | 6,197 | 21.61 % |
| 11 | Lkq Corporation | 5,825 | -23.72 % |
| 12 | Garrett Motion Inc | 4,971 | 89.47 % |
| 13 | Gentex Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 14 | Icahn Enterprises l p | 4,643 | -15.47 % |
| 15 | Brunswick Corporation | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 16 | Dorman Products Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 17 | Atmus Filtration Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 18 | Versigent Plc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 19 | Dana Incorporated | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Icahn Enterprises 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.
Icahn Enterprises L P's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Auto & Truck Parts industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (79 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | - | 22.21 % (avg) | - |
| Operating Margin | - | industry median | - |
| EBITDA Margin | 3.83 % | -1.10 % (avg) | +4.9 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 3.31 % | 6.94 % (avg) | -3.6 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.
Icahn Enterprises L P's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Auto & Truck Parts industry average (79 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 | - | 22.2x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | 25.0x | 13.9x | +11.1x |
| P/B | - | 2.6x | - |
| Return on Equity | - | industry aggregate | - |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | 1.99 % (avg) | - |
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.
Icahn Enterprises 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 | -45.84 % | -23.65 % | - | - | - | -15.57 % | -7.80 % | -3.61 % |
| Operating Margin | 10.59 % | -9.66 % | - | - | 3.91 % | 5.87 % | 13.07 % | 5.29 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 2.47 % | -2.02 % | -5.38 % | -3.32 % | - | 3.71 % | 4.83 % | 2.77 % |
| P/E | 5.8x | - | - | - | 32.7x | 16.7x | - | - |
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.
Icahn Enterprises L P's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Icahn Enterprises 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.
Icahn Enterprises L P falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.06x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 5.3% (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.
Icahn Enterprises 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 | High | Industry HHI of 1,190 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 3.31 % vs industry average 6.94 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Icahn Enterprises L P's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Icahn Enterprises 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.
Icahn Enterprises 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.
Icahn Enterprises L P falls in the Low attractiveness / Low strength cell: Harvest / Divest.
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.
Icahn Enterprises 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
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+12.2% 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 (0.06x).
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
No rule matched.
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.
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | 0.43 | 0.87 | 2.30 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 0.13 | 1.11 | 0.17 |
| Chevron Corp | 0.01 | 1.16 | 0.21 |
| Conocophillips | 0.49 | 1.36 | 0.45 |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | 0.18 | 1.25 | 1.69 |
| Valero Energy Corp | 0.35 | 1.61 | 0.32 |
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
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.
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | Q2 2026 | +25.6 % | - |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Q2 2026 | +42.3 % | +97.5 % |
| Chevron Corp | Q2 2026 | +56.3 % | +385.6 % |
| Conocophillips | Q2 2026 | +36.8 % | +98.8 % |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | Q2 2026 | +53.8 % | +244.0 % |
| Valero Energy Corp | Q2 2026 | +48.8 % | +514.3 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +29.1 % | +161.4 % |
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | Q2 2026 | - | -16.7 % |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Q2 2026 | - | +3.9 % |
| Chevron Corp | Q2 2026 | +36.3 % | +22.3 % |
| Conocophillips | Q2 2026 | +32.0 % | - |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | Q2 2026 | +43.4 % | +70.6 % |
| Valero Energy Corp | Q2 2026 | +36.2 % | - |
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
Icahn Enterprises L P's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | - | - | - |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 7.29% | 7.92% | 12.57% |
| Chevron Corp | 6.40% | 6.49% | 10.85% |
| Conocophillips | 7.55% | 8.36% | 14.30% |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | 11.79% | 12.26% | 42.47% |
| Valero Energy Corp | 12.54% | 16.22% | 28.12% |
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
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).
Icahn Enterprises 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Icahn Enterprises l p | - | 0.44 |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | 20.97 | 1.84 |
| Chevron Corp | 19.59 | 1.89 |
| Conocophillips | 16.72 | 2.42 |
| Marathon Petroleum Corporation | 13.69 | 0.75 |
| Valero Energy Corp | 16.21 | 0.82 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 16.74 | 1.29 |
Sign in to see all peers for Icahn Enterprises l p .
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.