Cardinal Infrastructure vs Construction Partners
CDNL and ROAD side by side, both in heavy construction other than building construction contractors. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CDNL and ROAD compare
Construction Partners is the larger company, worth 6.7 times as much as Cardinal Infrastructure ($4.8B against $712M).
Construction Partners keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 4.1% compared with 0.90% at Cardinal Infrastructure.
Construction Partners scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 6 for Cardinal Infrastructure), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CDNL | ROAD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $712M | $4.8B |
| Share price | $14.99 | $84.03 |
| Change, 1 year | – | −26.4% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 114% |
| Beta (5Y) | – | 1.32 |
| Employees | 1,480 | 1,639 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 33.0× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 1.4× |
| P/B | 2.7× (better) | 4.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 29.5× | 21.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 27.2× |
| PEG | – | 0.51 |
| FCF yield | −1.7% | 3.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $15.55 | $92.10 |
| Margin of safety | 3.6% | 8.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | – | 41.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 29.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 91.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 86.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 18.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 17.5% (better) | 15.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 8.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.90% | 4.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | −1.6% | 5.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 2.5% | 15.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 26.6% (better) | 9.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.71 (better) | 1.72 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −4.91 | 5.68 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.9× (better) | 2.7× |
| Current ratio | 3.53 (better) | 1.57 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.29 | 2.66 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | 0.68% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.68% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 46.3% | 87.5% |
| Held by insiders | 46.8% | 52.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $10.7M (better) | $8.0K |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.2% | 12.7% |
Go deeper
- CDNL stock overview
- CDNL income statement
- CDNL valuation and score
- ROAD stock overview
- ROAD income statement
- ROAD valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.