MLM vs TREX Stock Comparison
Compare MLM and TREX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MLM and TREX?
TREX leads the current stock comparison as Trex Company, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. vs Trex Company, Inc.
TREX leads
TREX leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MLM on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TREX, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Trex Company, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TREX over MLM, 46 versus 45 as of Sep 6, 2026. TREX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MLM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TREX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MLM. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TREX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TREX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Trex Company, 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 TREX 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 Resilience15%63 vs 47MLM +16
- Value30%35 vs 43TREX +8
- Momentum25%29 vs 34TREX +5
- Quality30%58 vs 60Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TREX. TREX’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; MLM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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.
TREX's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MLM and TREX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TREX (Trex Company, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MLM (Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
TREXTREX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TREXTREX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TREXTREX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
TREXTREX on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MLMMLM on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
MLMMLM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TREX, analyst targets favor MLM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MLM | TREX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.6% | +10.8% | MLM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.1% | +49.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TREX. 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 | 45 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | MLMon balance | revenue growth 43% vs 21.7%; EPS growth -83.4% vs 3.4%; TTM ROE 23.1% vs 17.4%; gross margin 28.2% vs 38.2%; operating margin 21.1% vs 20.2% — MLM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TREX | Value 35 vs 43 |
| Technicals | TREX | Price vs 50-day -6.8% vs -1.6%; vs 200-day -14.3% vs 10.9% |
| Risk Resilience | MLM | Risk Resilience 63 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | MLM | Target upside 26.6% vs 10.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MLM and TREX 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 TREX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5TREX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TREX +1
- 45 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- TREX +3
- 43 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- TREX +13
- 45 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- TREX +5
- 50 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when TREX moved ahead of MLM.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.74%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.94%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TREX 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.
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 +4.44%, 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.
- 1MLM closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to TREX's edge.
- 2MLM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TREX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TREX's advantage entirely.
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 | TREX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 43% | 21.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -83.4% | 3.4% |
| Gross margin | 28.2% | 38.2% |
| Operating margin | 21.1% | 20.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.1% | 17.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.52 | 0.29 |
Performance
TREX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MLM | TREX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.2% | -7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.6% | 15.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -15.6% | 21.6% |
| Year to date | -16.9% | 30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -15.8% | -23.6% |
Technicals
TREX has the stronger structure| Metric | MLM | TREX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.2 | 34 |
| ADX (14) | 22.6 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.8% | -1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.3% | 10.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.6% | 32% |
Risk
MLM is the more resilient| Metric | MLM | TREX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.84 | 1.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.65 | -0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | -0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -28.7% | -53.4% |
| Current drawdown | -27.3% | -29.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 50.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MLM or TREX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TREX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 46 against MLM's 45. The edge comes from value and momentum. MLM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 MLM or TREX the better buy right now?
TREX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 TREX over MLM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MLM leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; TREX leads Value by 8 points; TREX 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 TREX?
Analyst price targets imply +26.6% upside for MLM and +10.8% for TREX, so the Street currently favors MLM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TREX. 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 TREX?
TREX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TREX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, MLM or TREX?
TREX 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 TREX?
TREX 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 TREX?
MLM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MLM on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 TREX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.2% vs 38.2%; operating margin 21.1% vs 20.2%; ttm roe 23.1% vs 17.4%. MLM leads on two measures and TREX 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 TREX's lead over MLM getting stronger or weaker?
TREX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when TREX moved ahead of MLM.
What would change the MLM vs TREX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MLM closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to TREX's edge; MLM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TREX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TREX's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MLM and TREX?
MLM: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. TREX: 1 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 TREX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MLM and TREX 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.