MHK vs MAS

For growth investors, Mohawk Industries, Inc.

(MHK) is the stronger pick with -0. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 4% for Masco Corporation (MAS). Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK) offers the better valuation at 17. 3x trailing P/E (11. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Masco Corporation (MAS) a "Buy" — based on 38 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.

On trailing P/E, Mohawk Industries, Inc.

(MHK) is the cheapest at 17. 3x versus Masco Corporation at 18. 6x. On forward P/E, Mohawk Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 2x.

Over the past 5 years, Masco Corporation (MAS) delivered a total return of +16.

1%, compared to -55. 3% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MAS returned +152. 1% versus MHK's -47. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Masco Corporation (MAS) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

28β versus Mohawk Industries, Inc. 's 1. 34β — meaning MHK is approximately 4% more volatile than MAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 46% for Masco Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Mohawk Industries, Inc.

(MHK) is pulling ahead at -0. 5% versus -3. 4% for Masco Corporation (MAS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Masco Corporation grew EPS 2. 7% year-over-year, compared to -27. 1% for Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MHK leads at -2. 8% 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.

Masco Corporation (MAS) is the more profitable company, earning 10.

7% net margin versus 3. 4% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MAS leads at 16. 8% versus 4. 7% for MHK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MAS leads at 35. 5%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Mohawk Industries, Inc.

(MHK) trades at 11. 2x forward P/E versus 16. 9x for Masco Corporation — 5. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MHK: 26. 5% to $130. 00.

In this comparison, MAS (1.

7% yield) pays a dividend. MHK does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Masco Corporation (MAS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

28), 1. 7% yield, +152. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MAS: +152. 1%, MHK: -47. 6%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (MHK (Consumer Cyclical) and MAS (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: MHK is a small-cap deep-value stock; MAS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. MAS pays a dividend while MHK does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.