GEO vs Lennar
GEO and LEN side by side, both in building construction general contractors and operative builders. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GEO and LEN compare
Lennar is the larger company, worth 4.6 times as much as GEO ($19.9B against $4.3B).
On earnings, Lennar is cheaper: it trades at 15.8× trailing earnings, against 26.0× for GEO.
GEO grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.8% versus −8.0% for Lennar).
GEO keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.7% compared with 4.1% at Lennar.
Lennar pays a dividend yielding 2.4%; GEO does not pay one.
GEO scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for Lennar), 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 | GEO | LEN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.3B | $19.9B |
| Share price | $32.53 | $83.58 |
| Change, 1 year | 118% | −33.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 268% | −25.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.84 | 1.00 |
| Employees | 18K | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.0× | 15.8× (better) |
| P/S | 1.5× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 2.7× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.9× | 9.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 19.7× (better) | 24.5× |
| PEG | 1.64 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.1% (better) | 4.1% |
| Fair value | $17.80 | $76.95 |
| Margin of safety | −82.8% | −8.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.8% (better) | −8.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.3% | 8.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −29.9% (better) | −51.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −26.5% (better) | −47.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 13.0% | – |
| Net margin | 5.7% (better) | 4.1% |
| FCF margin | 7.5% (better) | 2.5% |
| Return on equity | 10.8% (better) | 5.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 9.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.97 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.56 | – |
| Interest coverage | 2.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.71 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 2.36 | 2.89 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.4% |
| Payout ratio | – | 37.6% |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | 5.0% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% | 7.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.9% | 92.8% |
| Held by insiders | 4.1% | 11.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.1M | $595M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.8% | – |
Go deeper
- GEO stock overview
- GEO income statement
- GEO valuation and score
- LEN stock overview
- LEN income statement
- LEN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.