COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
EXP vs MLM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EXP scored 58.1, MLM scored 41.8 — EXP leads.
Compare another set
EXP
Eagle Materials Inc.
58.1
$207.03 · $6.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.3
EXP leads
MLM
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
41.8
$525.27 · $31.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestEXP16.3x
- Fastest growthMLM+14.8%
- Strongest balance sheetMLM0.55
- Highest qualityEXP76 / 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)
EXP
stronger →← stronger
MLM
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
49
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
22
EXP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EXP
MLM
$171mC
FCF
$810mC+
+1.7%C
Rev
+14.8%B+
1.21C
D/E
0.55C+
16.3xB+
P/E
34.8xC
2.09C
PEG
2.65C
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
EXP
MLM
171% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
112% above
~35%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
-67%
1-yr DCF upside
-60%
-63%
5-yr DCF upside
-53%
-57%
10-yr DCF upside
-39%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EXP
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
MLM
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
The companies
EXPEagle Materials Inc.
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $6.4b. 16% off the 52-week high of $245.53. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $225.89 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. 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
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.
MLMMartin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $31.6b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $710.97 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $662.65 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 37% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 21% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. 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
Trailing P/E 35x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Reserve-replacement treadmill — every barrel or ounce extracted has to be replaced through exploration or acquisition; underspending on replacement reserves shows up in production declines 2-3 years out.
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 EXP and MLM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.3 points in favor of EXP. The widest single difference is Value, where EXP leads by 30.7 points.
- ValueEXP 53.2 · MLM 22.5EXP +30.7
- QualityEXP 75.8 · MLM 65.2EXP +10.6
- GrowthEXP 48.7 · MLM 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.