Compare Ambuja Cements and UltraTech Cement on a like-for-like basis across sales, profitability, balance-sheet strength, capacity spending and valuation—not on size or growth alone. The latest quarter reported for both is Q1 FY2026-27, ended 30 June 2026, but several reported measures have different scopes, so they do not support a simple head-to-head ranking. The company results available here also do not establish current share prices or comparable valuation multiples; they cannot show which stock is cheaper.
What the latest quarter says—and what it does not
Both companies reported substantial sales and capacity in Q1 FY27, but the figures are not measured on identical terms. UltraTech’s release gives domestic sales volume and domestic installed capacity; Ambuja’s presentation gives cement sales and capacity. For certain financial measures, Ambuja explicitly includes ready-mix concrete (RMX), while UltraTech’s financial results are consolidated. Treat these as company-reported snapshots, not a ready-made comparison of per-share value.
| Q1 FY27 measure | Ambuja Cements | UltraTech Cement | How to read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sales volume | 17.1 million tonnes of cement sales | 39.2 million tonnes of domestic sales, up 13.1% year on year | UltraTech states domestic volume; Ambuja states cement sales. The reported scope and comparison period differ. |
| Capacity | 109 MTPA as of 30 June 2026 | 200.1 MTPA installed domestic capacity | These figures indicate reported scale, not utilisation, profitability or the return earned on capacity. |
| Revenue / net sales | ₹9,500 crore revenue | ₹24,465 crore consolidated net sales | Do not infer comparable growth or revenue per tonne without reconciling definitions and scope. |
| Operating profit measure | ₹1,589 crore EBITDA including RMX | ₹5,146 crore PBIDT | Different labels and scopes; reconcile before calculating a margin comparison. |
| Profit after tax | not stated in the Q1 presentation figures cited here | ₹2,604 crore PAT | Do not compare a quarterly reported PAT with Ambuja’s FY26 normalised PAT. |
| EBITDA per tonne | ₹931 including RMX | ₹1,214 operating EBITDA per tonne | Definitions and inclusion of RMX differ. These figures alone do not establish which business has better like-for-like unit economics. |
| Utilisation | not stated in the Q1 presentation figures cited here | 81% on installed domestic capacity of 200.1 MTPA | Compare only after obtaining a consistently defined utilisation measure for both businesses. |
Sources: Ambuja Cements, Investor Presentation | Q1 FY2027, covering the quarter ended 30 June 2026; UltraTech Cement, Financial Results: Q1FY27, dated 20 July 2026.
Compare volume growth on the same basis
For a useful volume comparison, use the same period, geography and product definition for both companies. UltraTech reported domestic sales growth of 13.1% year on year in Q1 FY27. Ambuja reported 17.1 million tonnes of cement sales and said the volume was down 14% sequentially from Q4 FY26. Year-on-year and sequential movements answer different questions; the two percentages are not evidence that one company grew faster than the other.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute#1 Best Overall
Ambuja said it prioritised mix, rationalised low-margin volume and increased blended cement. Its Q1 presentation reported trade sales at 78%, premium cement at 34% of trade sales and blended cement at 85%. These are useful indicators of the sales mix Ambuja reported, but they do not prove that its realisations or margins exceed UltraTech’s. A fuller comparison needs matching data on regional sales, realisations, trade and non-trade mix, premium products and blended cement.
Check full-year profitability using comparable periods
Ambuja’s FY26 results
For FY2025-26, Ambuja reported 73.7 million tonnes of sales, ₹40,656 crore of revenue from operations, ₹6,539 crore of operating EBITDA (₹887 per tonne) and ₹2,647 crore of normalised PAT. Its FY25 comparison base included ₹826 crore of one-time income and ₹138 crore of GST incentives. Ambuja reported normalised EBITDA of ₹5,006 crore for FY25 versus ₹6,539 crore for FY26—about 30.6% growth on those company-stated normalised figures. Use that normalised comparison for like-for-like EBITDA growth rather than mixing FY25 reported figures containing those items with FY26 results. (Ambuja Cements, FY26 results release dated 4 May 2026.)
Keep normalised PAT distinct from statutory or reported PAT. A normalised profit measure is not directly comparable with another company’s reported PAT unless adjustments and definitions are reconciled.
UltraTech’s Q1 FY27 profitability
UltraTech reported Q1 FY27 consolidated PBIDT of ₹5,146 crore, PAT of ₹2,604 crore and operating EBITDA of ₹1,214 per tonne. The company said the quarter reflected its manufacturing and distribution platform and integration of acquired assets; that is management’s explanation, not an independent attribution of the results. (UltraTech Cement, Financial Results: Q1FY27, dated 20 July 2026.)
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Do not compare these quarterly UltraTech figures directly with Ambuja’s annual FY26 results. For a useful profitability analysis, put both companies’ same-period revenue, operating profit, per-tonne profit and profit after tax side by side, then reconcile accounting labels, consolidation scope and any one-time or normalising items.
Assess resilience and investment in growth separately
Balance sheet and liquidity
Ambuja’s FY26 release described the company as debt-free and reported net worth of ₹71,846 crore and cash and cash equivalents of ₹1,770 crore. “Debt-free” is the company’s description; an investor assessing resilience should still inspect the balance sheet, liquidity, obligations and cash-flow statements, and distinguish gross debt from cash when calculating net debt. (Ambuja Cements, FY26 results release dated 4 May 2026.)
The cited UltraTech FY26 disclosure reports capex and capacity additions, but does not provide a matching set of balance-sheet measures here. That is not enough evidence to rank the companies’ financial resilience. Compare both businesses using the same reporting date and definitions for gross debt, cash, net debt, interest costs and operating cash flow.
Capacity, capex and execution
Ambuja reported capacity of 109 MTPA at 30 June 2026 and outlined a plan to reach approximately 119 MTPA by FY27. The 119 MTPA figure is a target, not capacity already commissioned. UltraTech reported domestic grey cement capacity of 200.1 MTPA and global capacity of 205.5 MTPA after commissioning an additional 8.7 MTPA in April 2026; it also reported FY26 capex of ₹9,600 crore. (Ambuja Cements, Q1 FY27 investor presentation; UltraTech Cement, FY2025-26 results and capacity disclosure.)
Capacity growth can support future sales, but it also requires investment and does not guarantee adequate returns. Track commissioning dates, utilisation after commissioning, local demand, logistics and the cost of expansion alongside capex and cash generation. Treat stated targets as plans until the company reports the capacity as commissioned.
Rank #4
- Used Book in Good Condition
Account for costs and demand risk
Cement earnings can be affected by fuel and power, freight, logistics, packaging, currency, weather, regional demand and utilisation. Ambuja’s FY26 release identified fuel, diesel, packaging constraints and rupee depreciation as cost pressures, and management described a soft FY27 demand outlook amid geopolitical issues and an early forecast of a below-normal monsoon. Those are management’s views at the release date, not a guaranteed outcome for the financial year. The release also said it expected cost pressures to continue into H1 FY27.
When reviewing later results, test whether volume, realisations and per-tonne profitability developed as management expected. A company’s exposure can vary by region, product mix, supply chain and utilisation, so a sector-wide assumption should not replace company-specific evidence.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Do not call either stock cheap without current valuation data
Operating performance and share valuation are separate questions. A larger business, faster growth rate or stronger reported per-tonne figure does not by itself mean its shares offer better value. The company disclosures cited here do not establish timestamped current share prices, market capitalisations or comparable valuation multiples, so they cannot support a conclusion that either stock is cheaper or more attractive.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Before drawing a valuation conclusion, obtain prices from the same date and calculate comparable measures using consistent definitions. Depending on the question, investors may examine price-to-earnings, enterprise value to EBITDA and free-cash-flow yield, alongside the earnings or cash-flow period used in each denominator. Enterprise value calculations should use matching market capitalisation, debt and cash data. Check whether earnings are trailing or forecast and whether they are reported or adjusted; label those choices rather than mixing them.
A practical comparison sequence
- Match the reporting period. Use the same quarter or financial year for both companies and distinguish year-on-year from sequential growth.
- Reconcile the scope. Confirm whether each volume is domestic or global, cement-only or inclusive of other products, and whether financial measures are consolidated or include RMX.
- Compare operating performance. Review volumes, regional mix, realisations, utilisation, EBITDA or an equivalent operating measure, and per-tonne profit using consistent definitions.
- Normalise unusual items. Identify one-offs and incentives, and compare reported with adjusted or normalised figures only when the adjustments are disclosed and applied consistently.
- Test financial resilience. Compare debt, cash, operating cash flow, interest burden and investment needs at the same date.
- Evaluate growth quality. Separate commissioned capacity from targets; assess capex, utilisation, local demand and returns rather than treating added capacity as earnings growth.
- Then assess valuation and fit. Use same-date prices and comparable earnings or cash-flow measures, and weigh the result against your investment horizon and risk tolerance.
Ambuja’s investor downloads page lists its FY26 annual report and Q1 FY27 investor presentation, which can be used to check the underlying figures and definitions. (Ambuja Cements, Investor Downloads.)
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
