Real Estate - Development
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
FOR vs LGIH
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Residential Construction
FOR vs LGIH — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Real Estate - Development | Residential Construction |
| Market Cap | $1.39B | $1.07B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.71B | $1.67B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $167M | $71M |
| Gross Margin | 21.3% | 20.3% |
| Operating Margin | 12.3% | 4.7% |
| Forward P/E | 9.2x | 16.6x |
| Total Debt | $817M | $1.66B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $379M | $61M |
FOR vs LGIH — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forestar Group Inc. (FOR) | 100 | 179.7 | +79.7% |
| LGI Homes, Inc. (LGIH) | 100 | 55.5 | -44.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FOR vs LGIH
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FOR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 1.14
- Rev growth 10.1%, EPS growth -17.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.1%
- 118.1% 10Y total return vs LGIH's 56.4%
In this particular matchup, LGIH is outpaced on most metrics by others in the set.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.1% FFO/revenue growth vs LGIH's -22.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.2x vs 16.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 9.8% margin vs LGIH's 4.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.14 vs LGIH's 1.70, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither stock pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +39.4% vs LGIH's -14.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.3% ROA vs LGIH's 1.8%, ROIC 7.8% vs 1.7% |
FOR vs LGIH — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
FOR vs LGIH — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FOR leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FOR and LGIH operate at a comparable scale, with $1.7B and $1.7B in trailing revenue. FOR is the more profitable business, keeping 9.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LGIH's 4.2%. On growth, FOR holds the edge at +6.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.7B | $1.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $213M | $82M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $167M | $71M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $266M | -$69M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +21.3% | +20.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.3% | +4.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +9.8% | +4.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.5% | -4.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.6% | -9.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +1.6% | -47.1% |
Valuation Metrics
FOR leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 8.3x trailing earnings, FOR trades at a 44% valuation discount to LGIH's 14.8x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, FOR's 8.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than LGIH's 31.7x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.4B | $1.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.8B | $2.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 8.29x | 14.84x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.22x | 16.56x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.39x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.59x | 31.71x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.83x | 0.63x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.78x | 0.51x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
FOR leads this category, winning 7 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
FOR delivers a 9.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $3 for LGIH. FOR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.46x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LGIH's 0.79x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LGIH scores 3/9 vs FOR's 1/9, reflecting mixed financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.5% | +3.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.3% | +1.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.8% | +1.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.2% | +2.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.46x | 0.79x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $438M | $1.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $379M | $61M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $817M | $1.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FOR leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FOR five years ago would be worth $10,800 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,525 for LGIH. Over the past 12 months, FOR leads with a +39.4% total return vs LGIH's -14.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FOR at 11.2% vs LGIH's -26.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +12.1% | +11.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +39.4% | -14.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +37.4% | -60.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +8.0% | -74.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +118.1% | +56.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +11.2% | -26.4% |
Risk & Volatility
FOR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FOR is the less volatile stock with a 1.14 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LGIH's 1.70 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FOR currently trades 88.7% from its 52-week high vs LGIH's 66.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.14x | 1.70x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $30.74 | $69.50 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $18.50 | $33.59 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.7% | +66.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 52.5 | 56.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 134K | 490K |
Analyst Outlook
FOR leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates FOR as "Buy" and LGIH as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 91.8% upside for LGIH (target: $89) vs 4.1% for FOR (target: $28).
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $28.38 | $88.80 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 13 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | 0.0% |
FOR leads in 6 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Valuation Metrics.
FOR vs LGIH: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FOR or LGIH a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) is the stronger pick with 10. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -22. 6% for LGI Homes, Inc. (LGIH). Forestar Group Inc. (FOR) offers the better valuation at 8. 3x trailing P/E (9. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Forestar Group Inc. (FOR) a "Buy" — based on 12 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — FOR or LGIH?
On trailing P/E, Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) is the cheapest at 8. 3x versus LGI Homes, Inc. at 14. 8x. On forward P/E, Forestar Group Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 2x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FOR or LGIH?
Over the past 5 years, Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) delivered a total return of +8. 0%, compared to -74. 8% for LGI Homes, Inc. (LGIH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FOR returned +118. 1% versus LGIH's +56. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — FOR or LGIH?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 14β versus LGI Homes, Inc. 's 1. 70β — meaning LGIH is approximately 49% more volatile than FOR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Forestar Group Inc. (FOR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 46% versus 79% for LGI Homes, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FOR or LGIH?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) is pulling ahead at 10. 1% versus -22. 6% for LGI Homes, Inc. (LGIH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Forestar Group Inc. grew EPS -17. 8% year-over-year, compared to -62. 4% for LGI Homes, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FOR leads at 3. 1% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — FOR or LGIH?
Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 1% net margin versus 4. 3% for LGI Homes, Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FOR leads at 12. 6% versus 4. 7% for LGIH. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FOR leads at 21. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is FOR or LGIH more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) trades at 9. 2x forward P/E versus 16. 6x for LGI Homes, Inc. — 7. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LGIH: 91. 8% to $88. 80.
08Which pays a better dividend — FOR or LGIH?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.
All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
09Is FOR or LGIH better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Forestar Group Inc.
(FOR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 14), +118. 1% 10Y return). LGI Homes, Inc. (LGIH) carries a higher beta of 1. 70 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FOR: +118. 1%, LGIH: +56. 4%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between FOR and LGIH?
These companies operate in different sectors (FOR (Real Estate) and LGIH (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.