MMS vs BAH

For growth investors, Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) is the stronger pick with 12.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 4% for Maximus, Inc. (MMS). Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) offers the better valuation at 10. 5x trailing P/E (12. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Maximus, Inc. (MMS) a "Buy" — based on 16 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, Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) is the cheapest at 10.

5x versus Maximus, Inc. at 11. 6x. On forward P/E, Maximus, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Maximus, Inc. wins at 0. 74x versus Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation's 0. 77x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) delivered a total return of +2.

1%, compared to -24. 6% for Maximus, Inc. (MMS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BAH returned +227. 5% versus MMS's +35. 2%. 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), Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

35β versus Maximus, Inc. 's 0. 72β — meaning MMS is approximately 108% more volatile than BAH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Maximus, Inc. (MMS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 86% versus 4% for Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) is pulling ahead at 12.

4% versus 2. 4% for Maximus, Inc. (MMS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation grew EPS 58. 0% year-over-year, compared to 10. 4% for Maximus, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, BAH leads at 12. 7% 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.

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) is the more profitable company, earning 7.

8% net margin versus 5. 9% for Maximus, Inc. — meaning it keeps 7. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BAH leads at 11. 4% versus 10. 6% for MMS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BAH leads at 54. 8%, 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.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Maximus, Inc. (MMS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 74x versus Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation's 0. 77x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Maximus, Inc. (MMS) trades at 7. 5x forward P/E versus 12. 6x for Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation — 5. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MMS: 72. 0% to $110. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) offers the highest yield at 2. 7%, versus 1. 9% for Maximus, Inc. (MMS).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

35), 2. 7% yield, +227. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BAH: +227. 5%, MMS: +35. 2%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.