COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
MLM vs TTAM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MLM scored 41.8, TTAM scored 61.2 — TTAM leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. MLM's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but TTAM's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
MLM
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
41.8
$525.27 · $31.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.4
TTAM leads
TTAM
Titan America SA
61.2
$15.17 · $2.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestTTAM15.8x
- Fastest growthMLM+14.8%
- Strongest balance sheetTTAM0.53
- Highest qualityMLM65 / 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
TTAM
65
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
22
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
71
TTAM is stronger on 1 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MLM
TTAM
$810mC+
FCF
$135mC
+14.8%B+
Rev
+1.8%C
0.55C+
D/E
0.53C+
34.8xC
P/E
15.8xB+
2.65C
PEG
1.09B+
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
TTAM
112% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
10% above
~30%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~11%/yr
-60%
1-yr DCF upside
-21%
-53%
5-yr DCF upside
-9%
-39%
10-yr DCF upside
+12%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MLM
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
TTAM
Why this score
- Durable high returns
- Diluting shareholders
- Cyclical growth
- Short track record
The companies
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.
TTAMTitan America SA
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $2.8b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $19.57 — deep drawdown territory. 7 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $18.64 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
ROE 18% 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
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 TTAM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.4 points in favor of TTAM. The widest single difference is Value, where TTAM leads by 48.3 points.
- ValueMLM 22.5 · TTAM 70.8TTAM +48.3
- QualityMLM 65.2 · TTAM 64.7level
- GrowthMLM 50.0 · TTAM 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.