Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VMC scored 51.9, EXP scored 49.0 — VMC leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. EXP's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but VMC's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
VMC
Vulcan Materials Company
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
51.9
$244.58 · $31.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.9
VMC leads
EXP
Eagle Materials Inc.
Building Materials · Quality-Growth
49
$164.70 · $5.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEXP13.0x
Fastest growthVMC+7.4%
Strongest balance sheetVMC0.58
Highest qualityEXP72 / 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)
VMC
stronger →← stronger
EXP
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
37
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
45
EXP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VMC
EXP
$1.1bC+
FCF
$171mC
+7.4%B
Rev
+1.7%C
0.58C+
D/E
1.21C
28.8xC+
P/E
13.0xB+
1.66C+
PEG
2.09C
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
VMC
EXP
72% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
163% above
~21%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~28%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
-61%
-42%
5-yr DCF upside
-62%
-34%
10-yr DCF upside
-63%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
VMC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
EXP
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
VMCVulcan Materials Company
Building Materials · $244.58 · beta 1.05
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $31.7b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $331.09 — deep drawdown territory. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $312.30 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 100% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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.
EXPEagle Materials Inc.
Building Materials · $164.70 · beta 1.33
Why now
Building Materials · market cap $5.1b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $245.53 — deep drawdown territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $201.50 (implying +22% 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
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. 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.
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 VMC and EXP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.9 points in favor of VMC. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthVMC 50.0 · EXP 36.8VMC +13.2
QualityVMC 66.8 · EXP 71.8EXP +5.0
ValueVMC 41.9 · EXP 44.5level
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 VMC or EXP the better stock?
VMC scores higher: VMC 51.9, EXP 49.0 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 VMC and EXP differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where VMC leads by 13 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are VMC and EXP 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.