Lennar vs PulteGroup
LEN and PHM side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LEN and PHM compare
Lennar and PulteGroup are about the same size, with market caps of $20.6B and $23.4B.
On earnings, PulteGroup is cheaper: it trades at 12.7× trailing earnings, against 16.2× for Lennar.
PulteGroup grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−7.3% versus −8.0% for Lennar).
PulteGroup keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.6% compared with 4.1% at Lennar.
Both pay dividends: Lennar yields 2.3% and PulteGroup 0.83%.
PulteGroup scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 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 | LEN | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $20.6B | $23.4B |
| Share price | $85.46 | $124.74 |
| Change, 1 year | −33.3% | 5.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −18.1% | 147% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.02 | 1.01 |
| Employees | 13K | 6,506 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.2× | 12.7× (better) |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 1.4× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 25.4× | 15.5× (better) |
| PEG | – | 38.39 |
| FCF yield | 3.9% | 6.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $76.05 | $104.35 |
| Margin of safety | −12.4% (better) | −19.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −8.0% | −7.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.7% | 9.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −51.3% | −30.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −47.7% | −26.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 4.1% | 11.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.5% | 9.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.9% | 14.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.93 | 3.57 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.83% |
| Payout ratio | 37.6% | 9.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.0% |
| Buyback yield | 4.8% | 5.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.2% (better) | 6.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.7% | 95.3% |
| Held by insiders | 11.1% | 0.66% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $403M (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- LEN stock overview
- LEN income statement
- LEN 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.