CRH vs MDU Stock Comparison
Compare CRH vs MDU on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between CRH and MDU?
CRH and MDU are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CRH plc vs MDU Resources Group, Inc.
CRH and MDU are effectively level
CRH and MDU are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
CRH plc
MDU Resources Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CRH and MDU as of Oct 22, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare CRH plc and MDU Resources Group, Inc. 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 MDU 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.
- Quality58 vs 43CRH +15
- Value41 vs 51MDU +10
- Momentum51 vs 56MDU +5
- Risk Resilience60 vs 56CRH +4
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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: Momentum +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
CRH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRH and MDU both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
CRHCRH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MDUMDU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
MDUMDU on the Momentum factor, by 5 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
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CRH | MDU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.5% | +30.8% | CRH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CRH | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 11.24% | 11.21% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.869 | $0.318 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.480 | $0.540 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
CRH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.24% a year against MDU's 11.21%. 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 51 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | CRHon balance | revenue growth 46.2% vs -38.1%; EPS growth 9.2% vs -74.4%; TTM ROE 23.8% vs 6.9%; gross margin 35.8% vs 42.4%; operating margin 13.5% vs 17% — CRH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MDU | Value 41 vs 51 |
| Technicals | MDU | Price vs 50-day -3% vs -1%; vs 200-day -19.4% vs -7.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CRH | Risk Resilience 60 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | CRH | Target upside 48.5% vs 30.8% |
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 51 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- CRH +1
- 47 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- CRH +3
- 46 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- MDU +1
- 45 vs 46
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 2 when MDU moved ahead of CRH.
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
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only MDU
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.1%, AIQ +3 points).
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
CRH leads on balance| Metric | CRH | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 46.2% | -38.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.2% | -74.4% |
| Gross margin | 35.8% | 42.4% |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 17% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.8% | 6.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.82 | 0.88 |
Performance
MDU leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CRH | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.3% | 2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.8% | -9.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.4% | -10.8% |
| Year to date | -31.7% | -2.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -27.1% | 0.5% |
Technicals
MDU has the stronger structure| Metric | CRH | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58 | 66.3 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 24.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.4% | -7.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 14.1% |
Risk
CRH is the more resilient| Metric | CRH | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.96 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.68 | -0.17 |
| Max drawdown | -39.7% | -19.3% |
| Current drawdown | -35.1% | -16.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, CRH or MDU?
Analyst price targets imply +48.5% upside for CRH and +30.8% for MDU, so the Street currently favors CRH. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CRH or MDU?
MDU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MDU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 MDU?
CRH on combined revenue and EPS growth. 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 MDU?
MDU on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 MDU?
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 MDU?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.8% vs 42.4%; operating margin 13.5% vs 17%; ttm roe 23.8% vs 6.9%. CRH leads on one measure and MDU 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.
What do the current signals say about CRH and MDU?
CRH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MDU: 1 bullish / 3 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 MDU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRH and MDU 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.