Granite Construction vs Sterling Infrastructure
GVA and STRL 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 GVA and STRL compare
Sterling Infrastructure is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Granite Construction ($10.6B against $5.4B).
Sterling Infrastructure grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (93.1% versus 25.1% for Granite Construction).
Sterling Infrastructure keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.9% compared with −5.0% at Granite Construction.
Granite Construction pays a dividend yielding 0.42%; Sterling Infrastructure does not pay one.
Sterling Infrastructure scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 12 for Granite Construction), 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 | GVA | STRL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $10.6B |
| Share price | $123.62 | $345.91 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.8% | −14.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 195% | 1173% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 1.39 |
| Employees | 2,500 | 4,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 19.4× |
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 5.7× (better) | 7.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.2× (better) | 11.9× |
| P/FCF | 12.2× (better) | 22.5× |
| PEG | – | 0.50 |
| FCF yield | 8.2% (better) | 4.5% |
| Fair value | $145.37 | $443.80 |
| Margin of safety | 15.0% | 22.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 25.1% | 93.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.4% | 15.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −245% | 75.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −284% | 74.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 44.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 16.1% | 23.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 7.5% | 18.2% (better) |
| Net margin | −5.0% | 12.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 8.4% | 10.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | −25.2% | 43.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 15.9% | 51.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.64 | 0.06 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.80 (better) | −0.14 |
| Interest coverage | 1.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.11 (better) | 1.04 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.61 | 5.83 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.42% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.5% (better) | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 112% | 86.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.81% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.6M (better) | −$96.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.1% | 3.9% |
Go deeper
- GVA stock overview
- GVA income statement
- GVA valuation and score
- STRL stock overview
- STRL income statement
- STRL valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.