CRH vs MLM

For growth investors, CRH plc (CRH) is the stronger pick with 9.

0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 1% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM). CRH plc (CRH) offers the better valuation at 20. 4x trailing P/E (18. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate CRH plc (CRH) a "Buy" — based on 20 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, CRH plc (CRH) is the cheapest at 20.

4x versus Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. at 32. 2x. On forward P/E, CRH plc is actually cheaper at 18. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: CRH plc wins at 0. 61x versus Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 's 3. 03x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, CRH plc (CRH) delivered a total return of +141.

1%, compared to +65. 7% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CRH returned +341. 3% versus MLM's +260. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

(MLM) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 87β versus CRH plc's 1. 35β — meaning CRH is approximately 54% more volatile than MLM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 53% versus 77% for CRH plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), CRH plc (CRH) is pulling ahead at 9.

0% versus 0. 1% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CRH plc grew EPS 9. 8% year-over-year, compared to -42. 0% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CRH leads at 7. 2% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

(MLM) is the more profitable company, earning 17. 4% net margin versus 10. 0% for CRH plc — meaning it keeps 17. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MLM leads at 23. 3% versus 14. 2% for CRH. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CRH leads at 36. 1%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, CRH plc (CRH) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 61x versus Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 's 3. 03x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, CRH plc (CRH) trades at 18. 9x forward P/E versus 31. 0x for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. — 12. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CRH: 20. 5% to $135. 60.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

CRH plc (CRH) offers the highest yield at 1. 1%, versus 0. 5% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

(MLM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 87), 0. 5% yield, +260. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MLM: +260. 0%, CRH: +341. 3%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Basic Materials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.