Dream Finders Homes vs PulteGroup
DFH and PHM side by side, both in operative builders. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DFH and PHM compare
PulteGroup is the larger company, worth 22 times as much as Dream Finders Homes ($23.8B against $1.1B).
On earnings, Dream Finders Homes is cheaper: it trades at 12.9× trailing earnings, against 13.8× for PulteGroup.
PulteGroup grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−9.3% versus −10.9% for Dream Finders Homes).
PulteGroup keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.2% compared with 2.6% at Dream Finders Homes.
PulteGroup pays a dividend yielding 0.80%; Dream Finders Homes does not pay one.
PulteGroup scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 9 for Dream Finders Homes), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | DFH | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.1B | $23.8B |
| Share price | $11.99 | $129.50 |
| Change, 1 year | −36.8% | 7.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −33.1% | 148% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.28 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 1,911 | 6,506 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.9× (better) | 13.8× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 0.8× (better) | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.1× | – |
| P/FCF | – | 18.4× |
| PEG | – | 41.68 |
| FCF yield | −16.8% | 5.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $13.96 | $103.24 |
| Margin of safety | 14.1% (better) | −25.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −10.9% | −9.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 30.7% (better) | 9.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −63.0% | −31.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −67.0% | −27.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 2.6% | 11.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | −4.4% | 8.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.6% | 13.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.66 | 3.52 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.80% |
| Payout ratio | – | 10.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.0% |
| Buyback yield | 4.4% | 5.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.4% | 6.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 33.8% | 97.1% |
| Held by insiders | 71.6% | 0.67% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.8M (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 38.0% | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- DFH stock overview
- DFH income statement
- DFH valuation and score
- PHM stock overview
- PHM income statement
- PHM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.