CRH vs MAS Stock Comparison
MAS currently leads CRH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while CRH has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CRH and MAS?
MAS leads the current stock comparison as Masco Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CRH plc vs Masco Corporation
MAS leads
MAS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CRH on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MAS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CRH plc
Masco Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAS over CRH, 62 versus 51 as of Oct 22, 2026. MAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while CRH holds the stronger quality profile. MAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CRH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CRH plc and Masco Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CRH and MAS against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum51 vs 81MAS +30
- Value41 vs 63MAS +22
- Quality58 vs 47CRH +11
- Risk Resilience60 vs 56CRH +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MAS. MAS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; CRH keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
MAS's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRH and MAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAS (Masco Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
CRH (CRH plc): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
MASMAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
MASMAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
MASMAS on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
CRHCRH on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
CRHCRH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MAS, analyst targets favor CRH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRH | MAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.5% | +7.5% | CRH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.4% | +31.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CRH | MAS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 11.24% | 12.77% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.869 | $0.680 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.480 | $1.240 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #54 |
MAS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.77% a year against CRH's 11.24%. MAS never reduced its regular dividend in the window; CRH did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MAS | 51 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | MASon balance | revenue growth 46.2% vs 3.9%; EPS growth 9.2% vs 52.4%; TTM ROE 23.8% vs -4.1%; gross margin 35.8% vs 36.9%; operating margin 13.5% vs 17.7% — MAS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MAS | Value 41 vs 63 |
| Technicals | MAS | Price vs 50-day -3% vs 5.3%; vs 200-day -19.4% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CRH | Risk Resilience 60 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | CRH | Target upside 48.5% vs 7.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRH and MAS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on MAS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAS +11
- 51 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- MAS +14
- 47 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- MAS +5
- 46 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- MAS +2
- 45 vs 47
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CRH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (19.20%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MAS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.47%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
MAS leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.95%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.13%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CRH closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAS's edge.
- 2CRH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
MAS leads on balance| Metric | CRH | MAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 46.2% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.2% | 52.4% |
| Gross margin | 35.8% | 36.9% |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 17.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.8% | -4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.82 | -9.57 |
Performance
MAS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CRH | MAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.3% | 7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 6.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.8% | -4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.4% | 11.8% |
| Year to date | -31.7% | 17.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -27.1% | 9.7% |
Technicals
MAS has the stronger structure| Metric | CRH | MAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58 | 81.6 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | 5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.4% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 26.2% |
Risk
CRH is the more resilient| Metric | CRH | MAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.96 | 0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.68 | 0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -39.7% | -24.7% |
| Current drawdown | -35.1% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 35.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRH or MAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 62 against CRH's 51. The edge comes from momentum and value. CRH is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CRH or MAS the better buy right now?
MAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MAS over CRH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAS leads Momentum by 30 points; MAS leads Value by 22 points; CRH leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRH or MAS?
Analyst price targets imply +48.5% upside for CRH and +7.5% for MAS, so the Street currently favors CRH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MAS. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CRH or MAS?
MAS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CRH or MAS?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CRH or MAS?
MAS on the Momentum factor, by 30 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CRH or MAS?
CRH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRH on Risk Resilience, by 4 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CRH more profitable than MAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.8% vs 36.9%; operating margin 13.5% vs 17.7%; ttm roe 23.8% vs -4.1%. CRH leads on one measure and MAS on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is MAS's lead over CRH getting stronger or weaker?
MAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CRH vs MAS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRH closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAS's edge; CRH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CRH and MAS?
CRH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MAS: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CRH is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MAS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRH and MAS with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.