ECG vs MTZ

For growth investors, Everus Construction Group, Inc.

(ECG) is the stronger pick with 31. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 16. 2% for MasTec, Inc. (MTZ). Everus Construction Group, Inc. (ECG) offers the better valuation at 40. 2x trailing P/E (38. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Everus Construction Group, Inc. (ECG) a "Buy" — based on 4 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, Everus Construction Group, Inc.

(ECG) is the cheapest at 40. 2x versus MasTec, Inc. at 81. 3x. On forward P/E, Everus Construction Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 38. 1x.

Over the past 5 years, MasTec, Inc.

(MTZ) delivered a total return of +270. 5%, compared to +224. 1% for Everus Construction Group, Inc. (ECG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MTZ returned +1753% versus ECG's +224. 1%. 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), MasTec, Inc.

(MTZ) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 64β versus Everus Construction Group, Inc. 's 2. 39β — meaning ECG is approximately 46% more volatile than MTZ relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Everus Construction Group, Inc. (ECG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 84% for MasTec, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Everus Construction Group, Inc.

(ECG) is pulling ahead at 31. 5% versus 16. 2% for MasTec, Inc. (MTZ). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: MasTec, Inc. grew EPS 146. 1% year-over-year, compared to 40. 6% for Everus Construction Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MTZ leads at 13. 5% 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.

Everus Construction Group, Inc.

(ECG) is the more profitable company, earning 5. 4% net margin versus 2. 8% for MasTec, Inc. — meaning it keeps 5. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ECG leads at 7. 1% versus 4. 6% for MTZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ECG leads at 12. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Everus Construction Group, Inc.

(ECG) trades at 38. 1x forward P/E versus 48. 6x for MasTec, Inc. — 10. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ECG: -18. 6% to $129. 33.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, MasTec, Inc.

(MTZ) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+1753% 10Y return). Everus Construction Group, Inc. (ECG) carries a higher beta of 2. 39 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MTZ: +1753%, ECG: +224. 1%), 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 Industrials 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.