EIFS and stucco
EIFS and stucco sits 3rd of 8 in envelope and structure on net profit, and carries leaner overhead than the 48-trade average. Here is every figure, across all 7 revenue bands.
EIFS and stucco by revenue band
| Metric | $1M–$5M | $5M–$10M | $10M–$25M | $25M–$50M | $50M–$100M | $100M–$500M | $500M+ | CFOS target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead | 15% | 14% | 13% | 12% | 11% | 10% | 9% | 14% |
| Gross margin | 23% | 24% | 25% | 26% | 27% | 28% | 30% | 24% |
| Net profit | 8% | 10% | 12% | 14% | 16% | 18% | 21% | 10% |
- 2024 Construction Financial Benchmarker, Executive Summary, Construction Financial Management Association, 2024. The survey puts gross profit margin at 21.8%, SG&A at 11.8%, and net income before taxes at 6.3% across all respondents. The best-in-class top quartile reaches 11.9% net income before taxes. Those figures are the whole-population reading, so a single trade can sit well either side of them.
- 2025 Performance Benchmarks, Construction Companies, Jones Maresca and Company, 2025. This study reports specialty contractor gross margin between 15% and 25%. It puts net profit at 5% to 8% for a well managed company, and total indirect cost between 8% and 15%. The indirect cost band is the one worth reading twice, because it's the number most owners have never calculated for their own shop.
- SPM Trade Benchmark Reference, Sulphur Prairie Operations LLC, 2026. The reference holds 48 trades, and net profit in it is stated before taxes. It publishes here as 47 trade pages, because landscaping and irrigation share an identical benchmark profile and are one market, so they're presented together. Everything else carries its own row.
How these figures were built. Gross margin and overhead come from CFMA's 2024 and 2025 financial survey data, plus a January 2026 specialty trade study. Net profit comes from a 48 trade master dataset that covers 24 served trades and 24 adjacent trades. The reference holds 48 trades and the site publishes 47 pages, because landscaping and irrigation carry the same figures and are the same market. Where the survey and the master disagree on net profit, the master carries it. Benchmarks are reviewed against each new CFMA survey release and reconciled before publication.
6 problems specific to eifs and stucco
You buy the whole building's finish in one production lot and cut the foam profiles to approved shop drawings, then warehouse it for weeks before you can bill a square foot of finish. Lath is done Tuesday, the inspector gets there Friday, and eight skilled plasterers sit three days that nobody codes to anything. The elevations came without control joints, you bid the layout you assumed, and the architect drew the real one at submittal. They walk the building at dusk with a side light, write up shadowing that's gone by mid morning, and that walkthrough is what releases your money.
Each one below points at the item, the unit, the clock, or the party that makes it a eifs and stucco problem, and it says which step fixes it.
EIFS and stucco against the other 47 trades
| Metric | EIFS and stucco | Envelope and structure average | All 48 average | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead | 15% | 15.1% | 15.1% | 17th of 48 |
| Gross margin | 23% | 22.8% | 22.1% | 13th of 48 |
| Net profit | 8% | 7.6% | 7% | 8th of 48 |
EIFS and stucco sheds 6 points of overhead between $1M–$5M and $500M+, against 6.3 for envelope and structure as a group. Inside that group, Curtain wall and glazing keeps the most at 9% and Framing runs the leanest overhead at 13%. EIFS and stucco is neither, which is the usual position and the one with the most room in it.
Other envelope and structure trades
What owners ask
What overhead should an eifs and stucco contractor run?
EIFS and stucco shares its overhead figure with 13 other trades at this revenue, which is what the published data resolves to. It runs 15% at $1M–$5M and 9% at $500M+, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 0.1 points below the envelope and structure average of 15.1%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 14%. The CFOS target is one point leaner than your trade's average at your revenue.
What gross margin should an eifs and stucco contractor run?
EIFS and stucco shares its gross margin figure with 6 other trades at this revenue, which is what the published data resolves to. It runs 23% at $1M–$5M and 30% at $500M+, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 0.2 points above the envelope and structure average of 22.8%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 24%. The CFOS target is published at $1M to $5M. It's set at whatever gross margin produces the net profit target once overhead is paid, and never below your trade's own average.
What net profit should an eifs and stucco contractor run?
EIFS and stucco shares its net profit figure with 12 other trades at this revenue, which is what the published data resolves to. It runs 8% at $1M–$5M and 21% at $500M+, before taxes, as a percentage of revenue. That sits 0.4 points above the envelope and structure average of 7.6%. The CFOS target at $1M–$5M is 10%. The CFOS target is published at $1M to $5M.
Does eifs and stucco get more profitable as it grows?
Overhead is the number that moves. EIFS and stucco sheds 6 points between $1M–$5M and $500M+, which is in line with the 6.3 points envelope and structure sheds as a group. Net profit is already above the 48-trade average, so the room is in holding it while revenue climbs.
Where does eifs and stucco sit against the other trades?
EIFS and stucco is 3rd of 8 in envelope and structure on net profit. Curtain wall and glazing keeps the most at 9%. Framing runs the leanest overhead at 13%. Gross margin ranks 17th of 48 and overhead ranks 8th.
Josh Luebker ran commercial construction projects before he ran the numbers behind them, on data centres, military bases, hospitals, and high-rises. He wrote CONTROL: The Construction Financial Operating System, which is an eight-step framework for commercial subcontractors, and it publishes on October 1, 2026. He is a master electrician who moved into the office and kept the field vocabulary.
Sulphur Prairie Operations LLC maintains the benchmark reference behind these figures. Every edition is reconciled against the newest CFMA survey release before it publishes here. Where a figure changes between editions, the older edition keeps its year in the title so a citation to it stays correct.