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.
51.07%
Revenue growth above 1.5x PUK's 27.93%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
119.16%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x PUK's 27.93%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-100.00%
Negative EBIT growth while PUK is at 246.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
10650.00%
Operating income growth above 1.5x PUK's 27.93%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
1503.19%
Net income growth at 50-75% of PUK's 2157.71%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
1400.00%
EPS growth at 75-90% of PUK's 1749.71%. Bill Ackman would push for improved profitability or share repurchases to catch up.
1393.33%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of PUK's 1749.71%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
-0.28%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.15%
Slight or no buyback while PUK is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
318.04%
Positive OCF growth while PUK is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
151.80%
Positive FCF growth while PUK is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
30.07%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
92.82%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-22.83%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
1279.14%
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.
241.68%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x PUK's 136.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
408.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x PUK's 291.96%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
3324.04%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x PUK's 202.69% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
655.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of PUK's 835.13%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
-28.57%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PUK is 48.42%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
113.09%
Positive growth while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
41.01%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
21.85%
Positive short-term equity growth while PUK is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
153.74%
Stable or rising dividend while PUK is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
20.57%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while PUK is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
-18.96%
Negative near-term dividend growth while PUK invests at 54.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
26.24%
AR growth of 26.24% while PUK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
1.83%
Inventory growth of 1.83% while PUK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.97%
Similar asset growth to PUK's 4.12%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
5.99%
50-75% of PUK's 9.40%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
0.96%
We have some new debt while PUK reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15.66%
SG&A growth of 15.66% while PUK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.