Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: TSCO stock price vs MLM: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at MLM's multiple
Needs MLM P/E.
Implied fair value · at TSCO's multiple
Needs TSCO P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Eight period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
TRACTOR SUPPLY CO /DE/ · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
HOME DEPOT, INC.
TSCO vs HD
LOWES COMPANIES INC
TSCO vs LOW
FASTENAL CO
TSCO vs FAST
MASCO CORP /DE/
TSCO vs MAS
Vulcan Materials CO
TSCO vs VMC
EAGLE MATERIALS INC
TSCO vs EXP
CEMEX SAB DE CV
TSCO vs CX
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC
TSCO vs GVA
Summit Materials, Inc.
TSCO vs SUM
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC
TSCO vs MHK
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe TSCO can sustain its 4.3% revenue growth while preserving its stronger balance sheet, then TSCO looks worth considering for relative-value upside because it trades at much lower P/E, P/S, and EV/EBITDA multiples than MLM despite materially lower leverage.
TSCO trades at a large discount to MLM on every provided valuation metric, with P/E at 14.9x versus 28.0x, P/S at 1.0x versus 5.1x, and EV/EBITDA at 10.5x versus 19.8x. That discount is partly supported by TSCO’s lower margin profile, but the magnitude of the gap also reflects MLM’s much higher profitability and return on capital.
Supporting Metrics
