CRH vs URI Stock Comparison
CRH currently leads URI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 50. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while URI has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CRH and URI?
CRH leads the current stock comparison as CRH plc, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CRH plc vs United Rentals, Inc.
CRH leads
CRH leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from URI.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CRH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CRH plc
United Rentals, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRH over URI, 51 versus 50 as of Oct 22, 2026. CRH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while URI holds the stronger value profile. CRH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CRH lead: Reversed — URI led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRH now leads by 1.
Compare CRH plc and United Rentals, 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 URI 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.
- Risk Resilience60 vs 34CRH +26
- Value41 vs 54URI +13
- Quality58 vs 51CRH +7
- Momentum51 vs 52Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CRH. CRH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; URI keeps a meaningful value 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: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CRH's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRH and URI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRH (CRH plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
URI (United Rentals, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 33.1% against 28%.
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
CRHCRH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CRHCRH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
URIURI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CRHCRH on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 | URI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.5% | +18.2% | CRH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.4% | +37.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 51 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | URIon balance | revenue growth 46.2% vs 10.7%; EPS growth 9.2% vs 41.8%; TTM ROE 23.8% vs 29.2%; gross margin 35.8% vs 37.1%; operating margin 13.5% vs 24.8% — URI takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | URI | Value 41 vs 54 |
| Technicals | URI | Price vs 50-day -3% vs 2%; vs 200-day -19.4% vs 8.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CRH | Risk Resilience 60 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | CRH | Target upside 48.5% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRH and URI and are excluded from the count.
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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 CRH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRH lead: Reversed — URI led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRH now leads by 1.
- Today
- CRH +1
- 51 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- URI +3
- 47 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- URI +6
- 46 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- URI +10
- 45 vs 55
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when CRH moved ahead of URI.
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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only URI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.94%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CRH 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.41%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1URI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRH's edge.
- 2URI's EMA Ribbon Compression turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CRH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
URI leads on balance| Metric | CRH | URI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 46.2% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.2% | 41.8% |
| Gross margin | 35.8% | 37.1% |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 24.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.8% | 29.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.82 | 1.67 |
Performance
URI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CRH | URI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.3% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.8% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.4% | 29.5% |
| Year to date | -31.7% | 29% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -27.1% | 3.8% |
Technicals
URI has the stronger structure| Metric | CRH | URI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58 | 59 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 15.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.4% | 8.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 33.1% |
Risk
CRH is the more resilient| Metric | CRH | URI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.96 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.68 | 0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -39.7% | -29.1% |
| Current drawdown | -35.1% | -10.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 43.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRH or URI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 51 against URI's 50. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. URI is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 URI the better buy right now?
CRH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRH over URI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRH leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; URI leads Value by 13 points; CRH leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRH or URI?
Analyst price targets imply +48.5% upside for CRH and +18.2% for URI, so the Street currently favors CRH. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CRH or URI?
URI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. URI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 URI?
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 URI?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 URI?
CRH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRH on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 URI?
URI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 35.8% vs 37.1%; operating margin 13.5% vs 24.8%; ttm roe 23.8% vs 29.2%.
Is CRH's lead over URI getting stronger or weaker?
CRH lead: Reversed — URI led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRH now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when CRH moved ahead of URI.
What would change the CRH vs URI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: URI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRH's edge; URI's EMA Ribbon Compression turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CRH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 URI?
CRH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. URI: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 URI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRH and URI 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.