M/I Homes vs PulteGroup
MHO 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 MHO and PHM compare
PulteGroup is the larger company, worth 7.4 times as much as M/I Homes ($23.4B against $3.2B).
On earnings, M/I Homes is cheaper: it trades at 12.1× trailing earnings, against 13.6× for PulteGroup.
M/I Homes grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−6.0% versus −9.3% for PulteGroup).
PulteGroup keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.2% compared with 6.6% at M/I Homes.
PulteGroup pays a dividend yielding 0.82%; M/I Homes does not pay one.
PulteGroup scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for M/I 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 | MHO | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.2B | $23.4B |
| Share price | $126.96 | $127.01 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.6% | 5.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 111% | 143% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.16 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 1,801 | 6,506 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.1× (better) | 13.6× |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 1.0× (better) | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.4× | – |
| P/FCF | 23.2× | 18.0× (better) |
| PEG | – | 40.88 |
| FCF yield | 4.3% | 5.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $110.04 | $101.76 |
| Margin of safety | −15.4% (better) | −24.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.0% (better) | −9.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 9.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −41.3% | −31.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −38.3% | −27.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.4% | 16.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.7% | – |
| Operating margin | 8.2% | – |
| Net margin | 6.6% | 11.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.3% | 8.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.7% | 13.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 10.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.29 | 3.47 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.82% |
| Payout ratio | – | 10.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.0% |
| Buyback yield | 6.4% (better) | 5.7% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.4% | 6.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 97.1% |
| Held by insiders | 3.5% | 0.67% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$25.3M (better) | −$26.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.3% | 4.4% |
Go deeper
- MHO stock overview
- MHO income statement
- MHO 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.