PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
CRH plc (CRH)
114.271.68 (1.49%)
111.48 - 114.40
76.75 - 114.40
5.09M / 4.23M (Avg.)
23.96 | 4.77
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
-15.64%
Negative revenue growth while PUK stands at 27.93%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-22.15%
Negative gross profit growth while PUK is at 27.93%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-41.01%
Negative EBIT growth while PUK is at 246.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-43.79%
Negative operating income growth while PUK is at 27.93%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-45.82%
Negative net income growth while PUK stands at 2157.71%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-48.24%
Negative EPS growth while PUK is at 1749.71%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-48.22%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PUK is at 1749.71%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.47%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.26%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.05%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while PUK cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
79.61%
Positive OCF growth while PUK is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
82.16%
Positive FCF growth while PUK is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-8.62%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-22.98%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-36.73%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
113.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PUK's 59.45%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
2.59%
Below 50% of PUK's 136.38%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
18.08%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of PUK's 291.96%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
48.90%
Below 50% of PUK's 202.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-9.58%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while PUK is 835.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-51.67%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PUK is 48.42%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
131.60%
Positive growth while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
50.72%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
22.17%
Positive short-term equity growth while PUK is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
140.45%
Stable or rising dividend while PUK is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
81.94%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while PUK is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
53.18%
3Y dividend/share CAGR similar to PUK's 54.50%. Walter Schloss finds parallel short-term dividend strategies for both companies.
-24.95%
Firm’s AR is declining while PUK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.39%
Inventory growth of 2.39% while PUK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-1.19%
Negative asset growth while PUK invests at 4.12%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.90%
We have a declining book value while PUK shows 9.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.28%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-11.49%
We cut SG&A while PUK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.