MLM vs LIN

For growth investors, Linde plc (LIN) is the stronger pick with 3.

0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 1% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM). Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM) offers the better valuation at 32. 2x trailing P/E (31. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM) a "Buy" — based on 40 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, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

(MLM) is the cheapest at 32. 2x versus Linde plc at 34. 3x. On forward P/E, Linde plc is actually cheaper at 28. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Linde plc wins at 1. 10x versus Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 's 3. 03x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, Linde plc (LIN) delivered a total return of +80.

6%, compared to +65. 7% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LIN returned +379. 1% 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), Linde plc (LIN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

24β versus Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 's 0. 87β — meaning MLM is approximately 264% more volatile than LIN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 53% versus 68% for Linde plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Linde plc (LIN) is pulling ahead at 3.

0% versus 0. 1% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Linde plc grew EPS 7. 1% year-over-year, compared to -42. 0% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MLM leads at 2. 0% 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.

Linde plc (LIN) is the more profitable company, earning 20.

3% net margin versus 17. 4% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LIN leads at 26. 3% versus 23. 3% for MLM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LIN leads at 43. 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.

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, Linde plc (LIN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 10x versus Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 's 3. 03x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Linde plc (LIN) trades at 28. 0x forward P/E versus 31. 0x for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. — 3. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MLM: 14. 7% to $695. 30.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Linde plc (LIN) offers the highest yield at 1. 2%, versus 0. 5% for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MLM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Linde plc (LIN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

24), 1. 2% yield, +379. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (LIN: +379. 1%, MLM: +260. 0%), 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.