Green Brick Partners vs PulteGroup
GRBK 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 GRBK and PHM compare
PulteGroup is the larger company, worth 9.0 times as much as Green Brick Partners ($23.4B against $2.6B).
On earnings, Green Brick Partners is cheaper: it trades at 9.8× trailing earnings, against 13.6× for PulteGroup.
Green Brick Partners grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−7.3% versus −9.3% for PulteGroup).
Green Brick Partners keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.2% compared with 11.2% at PulteGroup.
PulteGroup pays a dividend yielding 0.82%; Green Brick Partners does not pay one.
PulteGroup scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 9 for Green Brick Partners), 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 | GRBK | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.6B | $23.4B |
| Share price | $61.07 | $127.01 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.7% | 5.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 124% | 143% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.31 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 620 | 6,506 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 9.8× (better) | 13.6× |
| P/S | 1.3× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 1.3× (better) | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 37.1× | 18.0× (better) |
| PEG | 1.78 (better) | 40.88 |
| FCF yield | 2.7% | 5.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $60.80 | $101.76 |
| Margin of safety | −0.44% (better) | −24.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.3% (better) | −9.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.9% (better) | 9.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −19.5% (better) | −31.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −18.4% (better) | −27.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 25.8% (better) | 16.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 29.2% | – |
| Net margin | 14.2% (better) | 11.2% |
| FCF margin | 3.6% | 8.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 14.3% (better) | 13.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.29 (better) | 3.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.82% |
| Payout ratio | 1.1% | 10.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.0% |
| Buyback yield | 2.2% | 5.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% | 6.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 81.8% | 97.1% |
| Held by insiders | 60.7% | 0.67% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$533K (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.2% | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- GRBK stock overview
- GRBK income statement
- GRBK 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.