MLM vs PWR Stock Comparison
MLM currently leads PWR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 35. The clearest difference is momentum.
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 momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. vs Quanta Services, Inc.
MLM leads
MLM leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from PWR. Wall Street currently favors PWR on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MLM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Quanta Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MLM over PWR, 59 versus 35 as of Oct 22, 2026. MLM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. MLM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PWR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MLM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MLM lead: Reversed — PWR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MLM now leads by 24.
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
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 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.
- Momentum87 vs 17MLM +70
- Risk Resilience64 vs 46MLM +18
- Quality58 vs 41MLM +17
- Value35 vs 37Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MLM. MLM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +18
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
MLM's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
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 momentum and risk resilience.
PWR (Quanta Services, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 39.5% against 24.9%.
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
MLMMLM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PWRPWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MLMMLM on the Momentum factor, by 70 points.
Lower downside
MLMMLM on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
PWRPWR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MLM, analyst targets favor PWR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MLM | PWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25.4% | +29.9% | PWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.7% | +37.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 13 | 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 | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.66% | 13.75% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.240 | $0.210 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.240 | $0.400 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (3) |
| Cohort rank | #153 | not ranked |
PWR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 13.75% a year against MLM's 7.66%. MLM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; PWR did in 3 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — 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 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 | 59 vs 35 |
| 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 0.7% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day -12.6% vs -0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | MLM | Risk Resilience 64 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | PWR | Target upside 25.4% vs 29.9% |
✓ 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 wide at 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 MLM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MLM lead: Reversed — PWR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MLM now leads by 24.
- Today
- MLM +24
- 59 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- MLM +10
- 50 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- PWR +8
- 44 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- PWR +10
- 43 vs 53
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MLM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.82%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PWR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.52%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.53%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MLM 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 +0.28%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.86%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 70 points behind, the largest single contributor to MLM's edge.
- 2PWR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MLM'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
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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.4% | -12.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.7% | -7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.8% | -7.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17.4% | 4.5% |
| Year to date | -18.5% | 41.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.7% | 39.3% |
Technicals
PWR has the stronger structure| Metric | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.8 | 40.4 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.6% | -0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.9% | 39.5% |
Risk
MLM is the more resilient| Metric | MLM | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.85 | 1.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.73 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.06 | 1.46 |
| Max drawdown | -33.5% | -28.5% |
| Current drawdown | -28.3% | -24.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 44.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -4.4% |
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 Oct 22, 2026, scoring 59 against PWR's 35. The edge comes from momentum 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 Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MLM over PWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MLM leads Momentum by 70 points; MLM leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; MLM leads Quality by 17 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 +25.4% upside for MLM and +29.9% for PWR, so the Street currently favors PWR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MLM. 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, 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 70 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, 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 18 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 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 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MLM now leads by 24. 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 2026-10-15, 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 Momentum gap — currently 70 points behind, the largest single contributor to MLM's edge; PWR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MLM'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 MLM and PWR?
MLM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. PWR: 2 bullish / 2 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
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.