REAX vs RKT vs UWMC vs COMP

For growth investors, UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) is the stronger pick with 65.

8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 23. 7% for Compass, Inc. (COMP). UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) offers the better valuation at 28. 2x trailing P/E (8. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Real Brokerage Inc. (REAX) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 forward P/E, UWM Holdings Corporation is actually cheaper at 8.

0x.

Over the past 5 years, The Real Brokerage Inc.

(REAX) delivered a total return of +25. 3%, compared to -48. 3% for Compass, Inc. (COMP). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: REAX returned +378. 8% versus COMP's -56. 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), UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

50β versus Compass, Inc. 's 1. 79β — meaning COMP is approximately 19% more volatile than UWMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Compass, Inc. (COMP) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 58% versus 9% for UWM Holdings Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) is pulling ahead at 65.

8% versus 23. 7% for Compass, Inc. (COMP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Real Brokerage Inc. grew EPS 73. 6% year-over-year, compared to -123. 8% for Rocket Companies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, REAX leads at 72. 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.

UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) is the more profitable company, earning 0.

9% net margin versus -1. 0% for Rocket Companies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UWMC leads at 58. 0% versus -0. 4% for REAX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RKT leads at 91. 6%, 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, UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) trades at 8.

0x forward P/E versus 53. 5x for Compass, Inc. — 45. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for REAX: 90. 6% to $4. 25.

In this comparison, UWMC (100.

0% yield) pays a dividend. REAX, RKT, COMP do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, UWM Holdings Corporation (UWMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (100.

0% yield). Compass, Inc. (COMP) carries a higher beta of 1. 79 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (UWMC: -41. 1%, COMP: -56. 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 (REAX (Real Estate) and RKT (Financial Services) and UWMC (Financial Services) and COMP (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

UWMC pays a dividend while REAX, RKT, COMP do 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.