NVR vs MHO

For growth investors, M/I Homes, Inc.

(MHO) is the stronger pick with -1. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 1% for NVR, Inc. (NVR). M/I Homes, Inc. (MHO) offers the better valuation at 8. 8x trailing P/E (9. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate NVR, Inc. (NVR) a "Buy" — based on 24 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, M/I Homes, Inc.

(MHO) is the cheapest at 8. 8x versus NVR, Inc. at 13. 8x. On forward P/E, M/I Homes, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: M/I Homes, Inc. wins at 0. 80x versus NVR, Inc. 's 1. 22x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, M/I Homes, Inc.

(MHO) delivered a total return of +76. 7%, compared to +15. 3% for NVR, Inc. (NVR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MHO returned +599. 0% versus NVR's +264. 9%. 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), NVR, Inc.

(NVR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 68β versus M/I Homes, Inc. 's 1. 07β — meaning MHO is approximately 58% more volatile than NVR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, NVR, Inc. (NVR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 31% versus 34% for M/I Homes, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), M/I Homes, Inc.

(MHO) is pulling ahead at -1. 9% versus -2. 1% for NVR, Inc. (NVR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: NVR, Inc. grew EPS -13. 8% year-over-year, compared to -25. 2% for M/I Homes, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MHO leads at 2. 3% 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.

NVR, Inc.

(NVR) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 0% net margin versus 9. 1% for M/I Homes, Inc. — meaning it keeps 13. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NVR leads at 16. 2% versus 11. 5% for MHO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MHO leads at 23. 0%, 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, M/I Homes, Inc. (MHO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 80x versus NVR, Inc. 's 1. 22x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, M/I Homes, Inc. (MHO) trades at 9. 9x forward P/E versus 16. 7x for NVR, Inc. — 6. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MHO: 26. 9% to $165. 00.

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.

For long-horizon retirement investors, NVR, Inc.

(NVR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 68), +264. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NVR: +264. 9%, MHO: +599. 0%), 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 Consumer Cyclical 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.