COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026

CRH vs MLM

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CRH scored 54.1, MLM scored 41.8 — CRH leads.
Compare another set
CRH
CRH PLC
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
54.1
$95.52 · $63.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
12.3
CRH leads
MLM
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
41.8
$525.27 · $31.6B
fundamentals as of
  • CheapestCRH16.9x
  • Fastest growthMLM+14.8%
  • Strongest balance sheetMLM0.55
  • Highest qualityMLM65 / 100
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD54.1/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY64.7GROWTH50.0VALUE49.0
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD41.8/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY65.2GROWTH50.0VALUE22.5
CRHMLMQuality64.765.2Growth50.050.0Value49.022.5
cheap & fastrevenue growth →← cheaper (lower multiple)-4%25%12x40xCRHMLM

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.

FCFCRH$2.8bMLM$810m
RevCRH+6.3%MLM+14.8%
D/ECRH0.78MLM0.55
P/ECRH16.9xMLM34.8x
PEGCRH1.89MLM2.65
CRH
stronger →← stronger
MLM
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
49
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
22
CRH is stronger on 1 of 3 pillars.
CRH
MLM
$2.8bB
FCF
$810mC+
+6.3%C+
Rev
+14.8%B+
0.78C
D/E
0.55C+
16.9xB+
P/E
34.8xC
1.89C+
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.
CRH
MLM
46% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
112% above
~18%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
-40%
1-yr DCF upside
-60%
-32%
5-yr DCF upside
-53%
-19%
10-yr DCF upside
-39%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
CRH
Why this score
  • Raising its dividend
  • Cyclical growth
MLM
Why this score
  • Raising its dividend
  • Cyclical growth
CRHCRH PLC
Building Materials · $95.52 · beta 1.20
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $63.5b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $131.55 — deep drawdown territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $138.38 (implying +45% upside).
Moat
ROE 16% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $63.5b 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
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.
MLMMartin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Building Materials · $525.27 · beta 1.11
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.
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 MLM diverge

On the headline score the gap is 12.3 points in favor of CRH. The widest single difference is Value, where CRH leads by 26.5 points.

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.