Lennar vs M/I Homes
LEN and MHO side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LEN and MHO compare
Lennar is the larger company, worth 6.5 times as much as M/I Homes ($20.5B against $3.2B).
On earnings, M/I Homes is cheaper: it trades at 12.0× trailing earnings, against 16.3× for Lennar.
M/I Homes grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−6.0% versus −8.0% for Lennar).
M/I Homes keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.6% compared with 4.1% at Lennar.
Lennar pays a dividend yielding 2.3%; M/I Homes does not pay one.
M/I Homes scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | LEN | MHO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $20.5B | $3.2B |
| Share price | $86.33 | $126.65 |
| Change, 1 year | −29.9% | −3.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −22.5% | 111% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.00 | 1.15 |
| Employees | 13K | 1,801 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.3× | 12.0× (better) |
| P/S | 0.6× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 1.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.6× | 7.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 25.3× | 23.1× (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 4.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $77.05 | $110.34 |
| Margin of safety | −12.0% (better) | −14.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −8.0% | −6.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.7% (better) | 7.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −51.3% | −41.3% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −47.7% | −38.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 12.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 20.7% |
| Operating margin | – | 8.2% |
| Net margin | 4.1% | 6.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.5% | 3.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.9% | 8.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 10.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.93 | 3.29 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% | – |
| Payout ratio | 37.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | 4.8% | 6.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 7.2% (better) | 6.4% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.8% | 98.8% |
| Held by insiders | 11.2% | 3.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $595M (better) | −$25.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 6.3% |
Go deeper
- LEN stock overview
- LEN income statement
- LEN valuation and score
- MHO stock overview
- MHO income statement
- MHO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.