RS vs CMC

For growth investors, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

(RS) is the stronger pick with 3. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 6% for Commercial Metals Company (CMC). Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (RS) offers the better valuation at 26. 9x trailing P/E (19. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Commercial Metals Company (CMC) a "Buy" — based on 26 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, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

(RS) is the cheapest at 26. 9x versus Commercial Metals Company at 97. 5x. On forward P/E, Commercial Metals Company is actually cheaper at 11. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Commercial Metals Company (CMC) delivered a total return of +134.

1%, compared to +126. 6% for Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (RS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RS returned +454. 9% versus CMC's +345. 8%. 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), Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

(RS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 75β versus Commercial Metals Company's 1. 53β — meaning CMC is approximately 105% more volatile than RS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (RS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 28% versus 32% for Commercial Metals Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

(RS) is pulling ahead at 3. 3% versus -1. 6% for Commercial Metals Company (CMC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. grew EPS -10. 2% year-over-year, compared to -82. 1% for Commercial Metals Company. Over a 3-year CAGR, CMC leads at -4. 4% 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.

Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

(RS) is the more profitable company, earning 5. 2% net margin versus 1. 1% for Commercial Metals Company — meaning it keeps 5. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RS leads at 7. 2% versus 6. 7% for CMC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RS leads at 26. 8%, 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, Commercial Metals Company (CMC) trades at 11.

0x forward P/E versus 19. 3x for Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. — 8. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CMC: 14. 7% to $82. 75.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (RS) offers the highest yield at 1. 3%, versus 1. 0% for Commercial Metals Company (CMC).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

(RS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 75), 1. 3% yield, +454. 9% 10Y return). Commercial Metals Company (CMC) carries a higher beta of 1. 53 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (RS: +454. 9%, CMC: +345. 8%), 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.