SWIM vs MAS

For growth investors, Latham Group, Inc.

(SWIM) is the stronger pick with 7. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 4% for Masco Corporation (MAS). Masco Corporation (MAS) offers the better valuation at 18. 6x trailing P/E (16. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Latham Group, Inc. (SWIM) a "Buy" — based on 8 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, Masco Corporation (MAS) is the cheapest at 18.

6x versus Latham Group, Inc. at 62. 0x. On forward P/E, Masco Corporation is actually cheaper at 16. 9x.

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

1%, compared to -80. 1% for Latham Group, Inc. (SWIM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MAS returned +152. 1% versus SWIM's -78. 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), Masco Corporation (MAS) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

28β versus Latham Group, Inc. 's 2. 11β — meaning SWIM is approximately 65% more volatile than MAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Latham Group, Inc. (SWIM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 9% versus 46% for Masco Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Latham Group, Inc.

(SWIM) is pulling ahead at 7. 4% versus -3. 4% for Masco Corporation (MAS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Latham Group, Inc. grew EPS 161. 9% year-over-year, compared to 2. 7% for Masco Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, MAS leads at -4. 5% 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 2. 0% for Latham Group, 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 5. 8% for SWIM. 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, Masco Corporation (MAS) trades at 16.

9x forward P/E versus 34. 4x for Latham Group, Inc. — 17. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SWIM: 43. 5% to $8. 25.

In this comparison, MAS (1.

7% yield) pays a dividend. SWIM 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). Latham Group, Inc. (SWIM) carries a higher beta of 2. 11 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MAS: +152. 1%, SWIM: -78. 9%), 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.

MAS pays a dividend while SWIM 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.