Seek Returns logo

ACM vs. PWR: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at ACM and PWR, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolACMPWR
Company NameAECOMQuanta Services, Inc.
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorIndustrialsIndustrials
GICS IndustryConstruction & EngineeringConstruction & Engineering
Market Capitalization15.91 billion USD56.01 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateMay 10, 2007February 12, 1998
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of ACM and PWR by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

ACM vs. PWR: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolACMPWR
5-Day Price Return-1.02%-0.43%
13-Week Price Return10.42%9.04%
26-Week Price Return16.36%29.23%
52-Week Price Return25.20%40.20%
Month-to-Date Return7.12%-7.45%
Year-to-Date Return13.06%18.93%
10-Day Avg. Volume0.69M1.00M
3-Month Avg. Volume0.90M1.19M
3-Month Volatility18.47%22.91%
Beta1.041.06

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

ACM

26.79%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
29.61%
Q3
17.18%
Median
10.42%
Q1
8.10%
Min
-0.10%

In the upper quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry, ACM’s Return on Equity of 26.79% signals a highly effective use of shareholder capital to drive profitability compared to most of its peers.

PWR

13.09%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
29.61%
Q3
17.18%
Median
10.42%
Q1
8.10%
Min
-0.10%

PWR’s Return on Equity of 13.09% is on par with the norm for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

ACM

3.82%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
11.14%
Q3
6.17%
Median
3.85%
Q1
2.40%
Min
-0.05%

ACM’s Net Profit Margin of 3.82% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Construction & Engineering industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

PWR

3.73%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
11.14%
Q3
6.17%
Median
3.85%
Q1
2.40%
Min
-0.05%

PWR’s Net Profit Margin of 3.73% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Construction & Engineering industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

ACM

6.38%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
17.56%
Q3
9.36%
Median
5.46%
Q1
3.47%
Min
-1.93%

ACM’s Operating Profit Margin of 6.38% is around the midpoint for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

PWR

5.73%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
17.56%
Q3
9.36%
Median
5.46%
Q1
3.47%
Min
-1.93%

PWR’s Operating Profit Margin of 5.73% is around the midpoint for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolACMPWR
Return on Equity (TTM)26.79%13.09%
Return on Assets (TTM)5.13%5.08%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)3.82%3.73%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)6.38%5.73%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)7.34%15.04%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

ACM

1.17

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
1.98
Q3
1.53
Median
1.24
Q1
1.05
Min
0.66

ACM’s Current Ratio of 1.17 aligns with the median group of the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

PWR

1.37

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
1.98
Q3
1.53
Median
1.24
Q1
1.05
Min
0.66

PWR’s Current Ratio of 1.37 aligns with the median group of the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

ACM

1.01

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
2.49
Q3
1.19
Median
0.63
Q1
0.29
Min
0.00

ACM’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 1.01 is typical for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

PWR

0.60

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
2.49
Q3
1.19
Median
0.63
Q1
0.29
Min
0.00

PWR’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.60 is typical for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

ACM

6.76

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
23.59
Q3
14.49
Median
8.20
Q1
5.26
Min
-6.49

ACM’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 6.76 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

PWR

10.76

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
23.59
Q3
14.49
Median
8.20
Q1
5.26
Min
-6.49

PWR’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 10.76 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolACMPWR
Current Ratio (MRQ)1.171.37
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.031.24
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)1.010.60
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)6.7610.76

Growth

Revenue Growth

ACM vs. PWR: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

ACM vs. PWR: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

ACM

0.81%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
6.28%
Q3
3.25%
Median
2.02%
Q1
0.23%
Min
0.00%

ACM’s Dividend Yield of 0.81% is consistent with its peers in the Construction & Engineering industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

PWR

0.10%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
6.28%
Q3
3.25%
Median
2.02%
Q1
0.23%
Min
0.00%

PWR’s Dividend Yield of 0.10% is in the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

ACM

21.01%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
139.17%
Q3
69.47%
Median
40.99%
Q1
10.51%
Min
0.00%

ACM’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 21.01% is within the typical range for the Construction & Engineering industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

PWR

5.92%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
139.17%
Q3
69.47%
Median
40.99%
Q1
10.51%
Min
0.00%

PWR’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 5.92% is in the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolACMPWR
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.81%0.10%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)21.01%5.92%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

ACM

26.07

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
36.96
Q3
24.81
Median
15.45
Q1
12.51
Min
2.74

A P/E Ratio of 26.07 places ACM in the upper quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This high valuation relative to peers suggests the market holds elevated expectations for the company’s future growth.

PWR

57.10

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
36.96
Q3
24.81
Median
15.45
Q1
12.51
Min
2.74

At 57.10, PWR’s P/E Ratio is exceptionally high, exceeding the typical maximum for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests the stock may be significantly overvalued compared to its peers and implies high market expectations that could be difficult to meet.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

ACM

1.00

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
3.22
Q3
1.63
Median
0.61
Q1
0.48
Min
0.11

ACM’s P/S Ratio of 1.00 aligns with the market consensus for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests its valuation, based on sales, is seen as standard and is on par with its competitors.

PWR

2.13

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
3.22
Q3
1.63
Median
0.61
Q1
0.48
Min
0.11

PWR’s P/S Ratio of 2.13 is in the upper echelon for the Construction & Engineering industry. This means the company is valued richly on its revenue stream compared to its peers, suggesting the stock is priced for a high level of future performance.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

ACM

5.99

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
5.74
Q3
3.33
Median
1.49
Q1
1.20
Min
0.23

At 5.99, ACM’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Construction & Engineering industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

PWR

7.13

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
5.74
Q3
3.33
Median
1.49
Q1
1.20
Min
0.23

At 7.13, PWR’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Construction & Engineering industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

ACM vs. PWR: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against the Construction & Engineering industry benchmark.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolACMPWR
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)26.0757.10
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)1.002.13
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)5.997.13
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)19.3940.85