This paper presents a comparison of two heat exchanger network retrofit methods as they are applied to crude units: the well-known and widely used Pinch Design Method (PDM) and a recently developed Heat Integration Transportation Model (HIT), a recently developed mathematical programming-based MILP model [Nguyen et al. Ind. Chem, Eng. Res. 2010, 49, 13]. We show that the three-step procedure (targeting, design, and evolution) used by Pinch Technology renders solutions with excessive and unrealistic splitting of streams as well as visibly less profit compared to the results of HIT.