Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CRH scored 53.9, VMC scored 51.9 — CRH leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CRH's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but VMC's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
CRH
CRH plc
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
53.9
$81.54 · $54.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.0
CRH leads
VMC
Vulcan Materials Company
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
51.9
$244.58 · $31.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCRH14.5x
Fastest growthVMC+7.4%
Strongest balance sheetVMC0.58
Highest qualityVMC67 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CRH
stronger →← stronger
VMC
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
67
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
42
CRH and VMC split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CRH
VMC
$2.8bB
FCF
$1.1bC+
+5.3%C+
Rev
+7.4%B
0.78C
D/E
0.58C+
14.5xB+
P/E
28.8xC+
1.59C+
PEG
1.66C+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
CRH
VMC
43% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
72% above
~14%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~21%/yr
-33%
1-yr DCF upside
-46%
-30%
5-yr DCF upside
-42%
-27%
10-yr DCF upside
-34%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CRH
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
VMC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
CRHCRH plc
Building Materials · $81.54 · beta 1.19
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $54.2b. Down 38% from 52-week high of $131.55 — deep drawdown territory. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $127.96 (implying +57% upside).
Moat
ROE 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $54.2b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition. Mining moat is reserve quality + extraction cost per unit — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the commodity cycle while marginal producers burn it.
Risk
Down 38% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Commodity exposure — earnings power tracks the price of the underlying commodity, not management execution. A 15-20% move in the commodity reprices the equity well before fundamentals catch up.
VMCVulcan Materials Company
Building Materials · $244.58 · beta 1.05
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $31.7b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $331.09 — deep drawdown territory. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $312.30 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 100% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Production-cost sensitivity — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the cycle while marginal producers burn it; watch the cost-per-unit trend, not just headline revenue.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where CRH and VMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.0 points in favor of CRH. The widest single difference is Value, where CRH leads by 6.5 points.
ValueCRH 48.4 · VMC 41.9CRH +6.5
QualityCRH 64.7 · VMC 66.8level
GrowthCRH 50.0 · VMC 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is CRH or VMC the better stock?
CRH scores higher: CRH 53.9, VMC 51.9 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do CRH and VMC differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CRH leads by 7 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are CRH and VMC scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.