Engineering & Construction
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FER vs ROAD vs ACM vs PWR vs J
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Engineering & Construction
Engineering & Construction
Engineering & Construction
Engineering & Construction
FER vs ROAD vs ACM vs PWR vs J — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Engineering & Construction | Engineering & Construction | Engineering & Construction | Engineering & Construction | Engineering & Construction |
| Market Cap | $48.20B | $6.64B | $9.22B | $115.54B | $13.05B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $9.35B | $3.26B | $15.99B | $29.99B | $13.17B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3.37B | $127M | $506M | $1.12B | $390M |
| Gross Margin | 87.0% | 15.7% | 7.7% | 13.6% | 23.4% |
| Operating Margin | 34.9% | 8.6% | 6.4% | 5.8% | 4.8% |
| Forward P/E | 67.4x | 39.4x | 11.9x | 55.0x | 15.3x |
| Total Debt | $10.73B | $1.69B | $3.36B | $1.19B | $2.71B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4.24B | $156M | $1.59B | $440M | $1.24B |
FER vs ROAD vs ACM vs PWR vs J — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ferrovial SE (FER) | 100 | 248.7 | +148.7% |
| Construction Partne… (ROAD) | 100 | 666.9 | +566.9% |
| Aecom (ACM) | 100 | 183.9 | +83.9% |
| Quanta Services, In… (PWR) | 100 | 2085.0 | +1985.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FER vs ROAD vs ACM vs PWR vs J
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FER is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 36.0% margin vs J's 3.0%
- 12.1% ROA vs J's 3.4%, ROIC 6.1% vs 9.9%
ROAD ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 54.2%, EPS growth 40.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 29.3%
- PEG 2.10 vs PWR's 3.19
- 54.2% revenue growth vs ACM's 0.2%
ACM carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.93, yield 1.4%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.93, current ratio 1.14x
- Beta 0.93, yield 1.4%, current ratio 1.14x
- Lower P/E (11.9x vs 15.3x)
PWR is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 32.3% 10Y total return vs ROAD's 8.8%
- +126.3% vs ACM's -33.1%
Among these 5 stocks, J doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 54.2% revenue growth vs ACM's 0.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.9x vs 15.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 36.0% margin vs J's 3.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.93 vs ROAD's 1.61, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.4% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs J's 1.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +126.3% vs ACM's -33.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 12.1% ROA vs J's 3.4%, ROIC 6.1% vs 9.9% |
FER vs ROAD vs ACM vs PWR vs J — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
FER vs ROAD vs ACM vs PWR vs J — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
PWR leads in 2 of 6 categories
FER leads 1 • ACM leads 1 • ROAD leads 0 • J leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FER leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PWR is the larger business by revenue, generating $30.0B annually — 9.2x ROAD's $3.3B. FER is the more profitable business, keeping 36.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to J's 3.0%. On growth, ROAD holds the edge at +34.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $9.3B | $3.3B | $16.0B | $30.0B | $13.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $3.6B | $405M | $1.2B | $2.4B | $865M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3.4B | $127M | $506M | $1.1B | $390M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $925M | $191M | $410M | $1.7B | $484M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +87.0% | +15.7% | +7.7% | +13.6% | +23.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +34.9% | +8.6% | +6.4% | +5.8% | +4.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +36.0% | +3.9% | +3.2% | +3.7% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +9.9% | +5.9% | +2.6% | +5.6% | +3.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -6.4% | +34.6% | +0.8% | +26.3% | +27.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +32.1% | +111.4% | +28.7% | +51.0% | -7.1% |
Valuation Metrics
ACM leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.9x trailing earnings, ACM trades at a 85% valuation discount to PWR's 113.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ROAD offers better value at 3.43x vs PWR's 6.57x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $48.2B | $6.6B | $9.2B | $115.5B | $13.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $55.8B | $8.2B | $11.0B | $116.3B | $14.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 46.70x | 64.16x | 16.94x | 113.23x | 46.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 67.35x | 39.42x | 11.92x | 55.03x | 15.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 3.43x | — | 6.57x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 28.72x | 21.06x | 9.14x | 46.85x | 13.19x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.30x | 2.36x | 0.57x | 4.08x | 1.08x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 5.40x | 7.17x | 3.53x | 12.94x | 2.85x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 23.80x | 43.30x | 13.46x | 71.29x | 21.48x |
Profitability & Efficiency
PWR leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FER delivers a 42.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $43 in annual profit, vs $9 for J. PWR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.13x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ROAD's 1.85x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FER scores 7/9 vs PWR's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +42.7% | +13.7% | +19.6% | +13.0% | +9.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +12.1% | +3.9% | +4.2% | +4.8% | +3.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.1% | +10.3% | +18.6% | +11.8% | +9.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.4% | +12.6% | +17.2% | +11.3% | +11.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.40x | 1.85x | 1.25x | 0.13x | 0.58x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $6.5B | $1.5B | $1.8B | $748M | $1.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4.2B | $156M | $1.6B | $440M | $1.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $10.7B | $1.7B | $3.4B | $1.2B | $2.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.81x | 4.34x | 5.42x | 6.27x | 4.59x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PWR leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PWR five years ago would be worth $79,737 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7,682 for J. Over the past 12 months, PWR leads with a +126.3% total return vs ACM's -33.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PWR at 64.0% vs J's -8.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +3.6% | +5.3% | -25.4% | +75.2% | -18.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +35.7% | +19.2% | -33.1% | +126.3% | -25.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +133.5% | +315.8% | -6.6% | +341.1% | -24.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +134.3% | +274.4% | +13.0% | +697.4% | -23.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +244.3% | +875.6% | +130.3% | +3228.3% | -21.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +32.7% | +60.8% | -2.2% | +64.0% | -8.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ACM and PWR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ACM is the less volatile stock with a 0.93 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ROAD's 1.61 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PWR currently trades 97.6% from its 52-week high vs ACM's 52.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.95x | 1.61x | 0.93x | 1.37x | 1.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $74.79 | $151.00 | $135.52 | $788.72 | $154.72 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $49.56 | $93.22 | $67.64 | $320.56 | $105.68 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.4% | +78.2% | +52.6% | +97.6% | +71.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.2 | 50.4 | 24.8 | 72.8 | 36.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.3M | 512K | 1.1M | 1.1M | 937K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ACM and J each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FER as "Buy", ROAD as "Buy", ACM as "Buy", PWR as "Buy", J as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 61.1% upside for ACM (target: $115) vs -13.6% for PWR (target: $665). For income investors, ACM offers the higher dividend yield at 1.41% vs FER's 0.38%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $70.93 | $146.33 | $114.88 | $665.29 | $155.57 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 9 | 25 | 35 | 38 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.4% | — | +1.4% | +0.1% | +1.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.22 | — | $1.00 | $0.40 | $1.27 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.2% | +0.4% | +4.2% | +0.1% | +5.8% |
PWR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). FER leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
FER vs ROAD vs ACM vs PWR vs J: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Construction Partners, Inc.
(ROAD) is the stronger pick with 54. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 2% for Aecom (ACM). Aecom (ACM) offers the better valuation at 16. 9x trailing P/E (11. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ferrovial SE (FER) a "Buy" — based on 2 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.
02Which has the better valuation — FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J?
On trailing P/E, Aecom (ACM) is the cheapest at 16.
9x versus Quanta Services, Inc. at 113. 2x. On forward P/E, Aecom is actually cheaper at 11. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Construction Partners, Inc. wins at 2. 10x versus Quanta Services, Inc. 's 3. 19x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J?
Over the past 5 years, Quanta Services, Inc.
(PWR) delivered a total return of +697. 4%, compared to -23. 2% for Jacobs Solutions Inc. (J). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PWR returned +32. 3% versus J's -21. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Aecom (ACM) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
93β versus Construction Partners, Inc. 's 1. 61β — meaning ROAD is approximately 73% more volatile than ACM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Quanta Services, Inc. (PWR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 185% for Construction Partners, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Construction Partners, Inc.
(ROAD) is pulling ahead at 54. 2% versus 0. 2% for Aecom (ACM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Aecom grew EPS 42. 7% year-over-year, compared to -72. 3% for Ferrovial SE. Over a 3-year CAGR, ROAD leads at 29. 3% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J?
Ferrovial SE (FER) is the more profitable company, earning 9.
2% net margin versus 2. 4% for Jacobs Solutions Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FER leads at 12. 2% versus 5. 8% for PWR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FER leads at 88. 3%, 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.
07Is FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J more undervalued right now?
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, Construction Partners, Inc. (ROAD) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 10x versus Quanta Services, Inc. 's 3. 19x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Aecom (ACM) trades at 11. 9x forward P/E versus 67. 4x for Ferrovial SE — 55. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ACM: 61. 1% to $114. 88.
08Which pays a better dividend — FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J?
In this comparison, ACM (1.
4% yield), J (1. 2% yield), FER (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. ROAD, PWR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FER or ROAD or ACM or PWR or J better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Aecom (ACM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
93), 1. 4% yield, +130. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ACM: +130. 3%, PWR: +32. 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.
10What are the main differences between FER and ROAD and ACM and PWR and J?
Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: FER is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ROAD is a small-cap high-growth stock; ACM is a small-cap deep-value stock; PWR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; J is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. ACM, J pay a dividend while FER, ROAD, PWR do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.