Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GVA scored 48.9, STRL scored 75.4 — STRL leads.
Compare another set
GVA
Granite Construction Incorporated
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
48.9
$112.50 · $5.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
26.5
STRL leads
STRL
Sterling Infrastructure, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · Quality-Growth
75.4
$513.00 · $15.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthSTRL+60.8%
Strongest balance sheetSTRL0.24
Highest qualitySTRL84 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGVA-26%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
GVA
stronger →← stronger
STRL
49
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
33
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
STRL is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GVA
STRL
$472mC
FCF
$482mC
+21.8%A-
Rev
+60.8%A
2.15D
D/E
0.24A-
1.0xA-
P/S
—
0.11A
PEG
0.64A-
—
P/E
37.0xC
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
GVA
STRL
26% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
129% above
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~39%/yr
+20%
1-yr DCF upside
-66%
+35%
5-yr DCF upside
-56%
+59%
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
GVA
No notable signals flagged.
STRL
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
GVAGranite Construction Incorporated
Engineering & Construction · $112.50 · beta 1.35
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $5.0b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $162.08 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +22%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.11 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $171.67 (implying +53% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
D/E 2.15 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Currently unprofitable (margin -3.3%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 31% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
STRLSterling Infrastructure, Inc.
Engineering & Construction · $513.00 · beta 1.86
Why now
Engineering & Construction · market cap $15.7b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $1005.68 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +61% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.64 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $836.57 (implying +63% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 32% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 112% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 49% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.86 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 GVA and STRL diverge
On the headline score the gap is 26.5 points in favor of STRL. The widest single difference is Quality, where STRL leads by 35.6 points.
QualityGVA 48.8 · STRL 84.4STRL +35.6
GrowthGVA 73.1 · STRL 96.0STRL +22.9
ValueGVA 32.8 · STRL 52.8STRL +20.0
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 STRL or GVA the better stock?
STRL scores higher: STRL 75.4, GVA 48.9 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 STRL and GVA differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where STRL leads by 36 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. STRL leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are STRL and GVA 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.