CRH vs VMC Stock Comparison
VMC currently leads CRH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while CRH has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CRH and VMC?
VMC leads the current stock comparison as Vulcan Materials Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CRH plc vs Vulcan Materials Company
VMC leads
VMC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CRH. Wall Street currently favors CRH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support VMC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CRH plc
Vulcan Materials Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VMC over CRH, 55 versus 51 as of Oct 22, 2026. VMC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CRH holds the stronger quality profile. VMC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CRH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VMC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. VMC lead: Reversed — CRH led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VMC now leads by 4.
Compare CRH plc and Vulcan Materials Company 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 VMC 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 81VMC +30
- Quality58 vs 47CRH +11
- Risk Resilience60 vs 68VMC +8
- Value41 vs 35CRH +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor VMC. VMC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; 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: Momentum +15
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
VMC's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRH and VMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VMC (Vulcan Materials Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CRH (CRH plc): the counter-case, on quality, value, fundamentals.
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
VMCVMC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
VMCVMC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRHCRH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
VMCVMC on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
VMCVMC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 VMC, analyst targets favor CRH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRH | VMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.5% | +15.7% | CRH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.4% | +32.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 9 | 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 | VMC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 11.24% | 7.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.869 | $1.360 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.480 | $1.960 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #159 |
CRH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.24% a year against VMC's 7.58%. VMC 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VMC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VMC | 51 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | CRHon balance | revenue growth 46.2% vs 22.8%; EPS growth 9.2% vs 95.3%; TTM ROE 23.8% vs 13.1%; gross margin 35.8% vs 27.4%; operating margin 13.5% vs 19.9% — CRH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRH | Value 41 vs 35 |
| Technicals | VMC | Price vs 50-day -3% vs 2.9%; vs 200-day -19.4% vs -7% |
| Risk Resilience | VMC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | CRH | Target upside 48.5% vs 15.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRH and VMC 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 lead has been steady session to session. (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 VMC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VMC lead: Reversed — CRH led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VMC now leads by 4.
- Today
- VMC +4
- 51 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- VMC +1
- 47 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- CRH +3
- 46 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CRH +3
- 45 vs 42
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 10 when VMC 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
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VMC
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
VMC 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 +1.04%, AIQ +4 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 VMC's edge.
- 2CRH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VMC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
CRH leads on balance| Metric | CRH | VMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 46.2% | 22.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.2% | 95.3% |
| Gross margin | 35.8% | 27.4% |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 19.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.8% | 13.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.82 | 0.58 |
Performance
VMC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CRH | VMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.3% | 7.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.8% | -5.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.4% | -9.9% |
| Year to date | -31.7% | -8.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -27.1% | -11.6% |
Technicals
VMC has the stronger structure| Metric | CRH | VMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58 | 71.4 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 22.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | 2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.4% | -7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 23.5% |
Risk
VMC is the more resilient| Metric | CRH | VMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 0.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.96 | -0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.68 | -0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -39.7% | -27.1% |
| Current drawdown | -35.1% | -20.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 28.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRH or VMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VMC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 55 against CRH's 51. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 VMC the better buy right now?
VMC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VMC over CRH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VMC leads Momentum by 30 points; CRH leads Quality by 11 points; VMC leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRH or VMC?
Analyst price targets imply +48.5% upside for CRH and +15.7% for VMC, so the Street currently favors CRH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VMC. 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 VMC?
CRH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 VMC?
VMC 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 VMC?
VMC 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 VMC?
VMC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VMC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 VMC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.8% vs 27.4%; operating margin 13.5% vs 19.9%; ttm roe 23.8% vs 13.1%. CRH leads on two measures and VMC on one measure, 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 VMC's lead over CRH getting stronger or weaker?
VMC lead: Reversed — CRH led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VMC now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-10, when VMC moved ahead of CRH.
What would change the CRH vs VMC 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 VMC's edge; CRH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VMC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 VMC?
CRH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VMC: 2 bullish / 3 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 VMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRH and VMC 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.