How does the quarterly performance compare with peer companies such as LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, and Vinci?

Answer

The filing you referenced only tells us that CRH plc has submitted its Form 10‑Q for the quarter ended 30 June 2025. The document itself (the Form 10‑Q) contains the detailed financial and operating results for that period, but the brief news excerpt you provided does not include any of those performance figures—such as revenue, earnings, order intake, margins, cash‑flow, or segment results.

Because the specific quarterly results for CRH are not disclosed in the summary you shared, we cannot directly compare CRH’s performance to its peers—LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, and Vinci—based solely on this news item. A meaningful peer‑comparison would require the same type of data for each company (e.g.,:

) to see how they stack up against one another.

What you can do next

1. Access CRH’s Form 10‑Q

   • SEC website: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search‑and‑browse (search for “CRH Form 10‑Q 2025‑06‑30”).
     
   • CRH investor site: https://www.crh.com/investors/financial‑reports.
     The filing will contain the full set of quarterly results, including tables and management discussion that you can extract for comparison.

2. Gather comparable data for the peers

   • LafargeHolcim – Look for its “Quarterly Report” or “Form 20‑F/6‑K” covering the same period (Q2 2025).
     
   • HeidelbergCement – Its “Half‑Year Report” or “Form 20‑F” will have the Q2 2025 figures.
     
   • Vinci – Check its “Quarterly Financial Statements” (often a “Form 20‑F” or “Quarterly Report”) for Q2 2025.
     All three companies publish these documents on their own investor‑relations websites and, where applicable, on the SEC (for U.S.-listed entities) or the relevant European filing portals (e.g., Euronext, Swiss SIX).

3. Key performance indicators to line‑up
   
   When you have the data, focus on the same metrics that analysts typically use for the building‑materials and construction‑services sector:

   • Revenue growth (organic vs. total)
   • EBITDA and EBITDA margin
   • Net profit (or loss) and EPS
   • Order intake / new contracts (a leading indicator of future revenue)
   • Geographic mix (e.g., Europe vs. North America vs. Rest of World)
   • Capex and free cash‑flow
   • Gross‑margin trends (especially for cement vs. aggregates vs. construction services)
   • Guidance vs. actual (how the companies are meeting or revising their outlooks)

4. Contextual factors
   
   Even after you have the numbers, consider the broader market backdrop that can affect performance:

   • Input‑cost volatility (e.g., energy, CO₂‑pricing, raw‑material costs)
   • Regional demand trends (post‑pandemic construction activity, government infrastructure spending)
   • Regulatory or sustainability initiatives (e.g., carbon‑reduction targets, low‑carbon cement technologies)
   • Currency effects (especially for CRH, which reports in euros but has significant US and UK exposure)

Sample “What‑If” Comparison Framework (illustrative)

Below is a hypothetical template you could fill in once the numbers are retrieved. It shows how the comparison would look if, for example, CRH reported €5.2 bn of revenue, €0.8 bn of EBITDA, and a 15 % EBITDA margin, while the peers posted the following:

Numbers above are *fictional** and only illustrate how you could juxtapose the key figures once the actual data are in hand.*

Bottom line

• From the news snippet alone: No performance data are disclosed, so a direct comparison cannot be made.
• Action required: Retrieve CRH’s full Form 10‑Q and the equivalent quarterly reports for LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, and Vinci. Then line up the same financial and operating metrics to assess relative strength, growth trends, profitability, and market positioning for the June 30 2025 quarter.

If you need help interpreting the actual Form 10‑Q once you have it (e.g., extracting specific tables, calculating margins, or building a peer‑comparison chart), feel free to share the relevant sections, and I can walk you through the analysis.