Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MLM scored 56.4, CRH scored 53.9 — MLM leads.
Compare another set
MLM
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
56.4
$478.35 · $34.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.5
MLM leads
CRH
CRH plc
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
53.9
$81.54 · $54.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCRH14.5x
Fastest growthMLM+14.8%
Strongest balance sheetMLM0.55
Highest qualityCRH65 / 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)
MLM
stronger →← stronger
CRH
64
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
56
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
48
MLM and CRH split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MLM
CRH
$810mC+
FCF
$2.8bB
+14.8%B+
Rev
+5.3%C+
0.55C+
D/E
0.78C
31.3xC
P/E
14.5xB+
1.82C+
PEG
1.59C+
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
MLM
CRH
175% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
43% above
~32%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~14%/yr
-66%
1-yr DCF upside
-33%
-64%
5-yr DCF upside
-30%
-61%
10-yr DCF upside
-27%
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
MLM
Why this score
Cyclical growth
CRH
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
MLMMartin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Building Materials · $478.35 · beta 1.08
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $34.0b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $710.97 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $635.17 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
Net margin 37% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 21% is above 15% — 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
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 31x 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.
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.
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 MLM and CRH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.5 points in favor of MLM. The widest single difference is Value, where MLM leads by 7.9 points.
ValueMLM 56.3 · CRH 48.4MLM +7.9
QualityMLM 63.6 · CRH 64.7level
GrowthMLM 50.0 · CRH 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 MLM or CRH the better stock?
MLM scores higher: MLM 56.4, CRH 53.9 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 MLM and CRH differ most?
The widest gap is value, where MLM leads by 8 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 MLM and CRH 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.