MLM vs PWR Stock Comparison
Compare MLM and PWR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MLM and PWR?
MLM leads the current stock comparison as Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. vs Quanta Services, Inc.
MLM leads
MLM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from PWR.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MLM, and the lead recently changed hands.
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Quanta Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MLM over PWR, 45 versus 37 as of Sep 6, 2026. MLM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. MLM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MLM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. MLM lead: Reversed — PWR led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MLM now leads by 8.
Compare Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Quanta Services, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MLM and PWR 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.
- Quality30%58 vs 41MLM +17
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 49MLM +14
- Momentum25%29 vs 24MLM +5
- Value30%35 vs 37Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MLM. MLM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MLM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MLM and PWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MLM (Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
PWR (Quanta Services, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 38.1% against 25.6%.
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
MLMMLM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PWRPWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MLMMLM on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MLMMLM on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
MLMMLM 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 | MLM | PWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.6% | +23.5% | MLM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.1% | +38.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MLM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MLM | 45 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | MLMon balance | revenue growth 43% vs 21.4%; EPS growth -83.4% vs 104.8%; TTM ROE 23.1% vs 14.9%; gross margin 28.2% vs 14.4%; operating margin 21.1% vs 6.2% — MLM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 37 |
| Technicals | PWR | Price vs 50-day -6.8% vs -4.3%; vs 200-day -14.3% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MLM | Risk Resilience 63 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | MLM | Target upside 26.6% vs 23.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MLM and PWR 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 MLM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5MLM lead: Reversed — PWR led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MLM now leads by 8.
- Today
- MLM +8
- 45 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- MLM +8
- 43 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- PWR +7
- 45 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- MLM +12
- 50 vs 38
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when MLM moved ahead of PWR.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.77%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.9%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.94%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.90%)
PWR is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.7%, 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.
- 1PWR closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to MLM's edge.
- 2PWR's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MLM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
MLM leads on balance| Metric | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 43% | 21.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -83.4% | 104.8% |
| Gross margin | 28.2% | 14.4% |
| Operating margin | 21.1% | 6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.1% | 14.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.52 | 0.69 |
Performance
PWR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | 3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.2% | -7.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.6% | -10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -15.6% | 15.6% |
| Year to date | -16.9% | 47.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -15.8% | 66.8% |
Technicals
PWR has the stronger structure| Metric | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.2 | 22.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22.6 | 17.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.8% | -4.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.3% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.6% | 38.1% |
Risk
MLM is the more resilient| Metric | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.84 | 1.66 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.65 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | 2.17 |
| Max drawdown | -28.7% | -28.5% |
| Current drawdown | -27.3% | -20.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 44.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MLM or PWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MLM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 45 against PWR's 37. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 MLM or PWR the better buy right now?
MLM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MLM over PWR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MLM leads Quality by 17 points; MLM leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; MLM leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MLM or PWR?
Analyst price targets imply +26.6% upside for MLM and +23.5% for PWR, so the Street currently favors MLM. 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, MLM or PWR?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, MLM or PWR?
PWR 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, MLM or PWR?
MLM on the Momentum factor, by 5 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, MLM or PWR?
MLM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MLM on Risk Resilience, by 14 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MLM more profitable than PWR?
MLM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 28.2% vs 14.4%; operating margin 21.1% vs 6.2%; ttm roe 23.1% vs 14.9%.
Is MLM's lead over PWR getting stronger or weaker?
MLM lead: Reversed — PWR led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MLM now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when MLM moved ahead of PWR.
What would change the MLM vs PWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PWR closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to MLM's edge; PWR's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MLM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MLM and PWR?
MLM: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. PWR: 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 MLM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On PWR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MLM and PWR with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.