Construction Partners vs Sterling Infrastructure
ROAD 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 ROAD and STRL compare
Sterling Infrastructure is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Construction Partners ($10.6B against $5.1B).
On earnings, Sterling Infrastructure is cheaper: it trades at 19.4× trailing earnings, against 35.2× for Construction Partners.
Sterling Infrastructure grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (93.1% versus 41.9% for Construction Partners).
Sterling Infrastructure keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.9% compared with 4.1% at Construction Partners.
Sterling Infrastructure scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 15 for Construction Partners), 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 | ROAD | STRL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.1B | $10.6B |
| Share price | $89.80 | $345.91 |
| Change, 1 year | −22.7% | −14.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 117% | 1173% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.30 | 1.39 |
| Employees | 1,639 | 4,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 4 |
| Growth score | 6 | 6 |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 35.2× | 19.4× (better) |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 4.9× (better) | 7.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.8× | 11.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 29.0× | 22.5× (better) |
| PEG | 0.54 | 0.50 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.4% | 4.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $99.18 | $443.80 |
| Margin of safety | 9.5% | 22.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 41.9% | 93.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 29.1% (better) | 15.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 91.2% (better) | 75.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 86.1% (better) | 74.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 18.7% | 44.3% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 15.8% | 23.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.6% | 18.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.1% | 12.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.0% | 10.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 15.0% | 43.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.2% | 51.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.72 | 0.06 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.68 (better) | −0.14 |
| Interest coverage | 2.7× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.57 (better) | 1.04 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.73 | 5.83 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.64% | 1.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.64% | 1.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.5% | 86.0% |
| Held by insiders | 52.7% | 2.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$96.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.9% | 3.9% |
Go deeper
- ROAD stock overview
- ROAD income statement
- ROAD 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.