Residential Construction
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TMHC vs HD vs LOW vs FND vs BLDR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Home Improvement
Home Improvement
Home Improvement
Construction
TMHC vs HD vs LOW vs FND vs BLDR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Residential Construction | Home Improvement | Home Improvement | Home Improvement | Construction |
| Market Cap | $5.56B | $320.71B | $129.29B | $5.57B | $8.79B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $7.61B | $164.68B | $86.29B | $4.68B | $14.82B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $672M | $14.16B | $6.65B | $199M | $292M |
| Gross Margin | 22.4% | 33.3% | 33.5% | 41.2% | 29.9% |
| Operating Margin | 13.2% | 12.7% | 11.8% | 5.7% | 4.2% |
| Forward P/E | 11.2x | 21.5x | 18.3x | 26.1x | 14.1x |
| Total Debt | $2.36B | $19.01B | $7.19B | $3.63B | $5.65B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $851M | $1.39B | $982M | $249M | $182M |
TMHC vs HD vs LOW vs FND vs BLDR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor Morrison Hom… (TMHC) | 100 | 307.7 | +207.7% |
| The Home Depot, Inc. (HD) | 100 | 129.8 | +29.8% |
| Lowe's Companies, I… (LOW) | 100 | 177.1 | +77.1% |
| Floor & Decor Holdi… (FND) | 100 | 99.1 | -0.9% |
| Builders FirstSourc… (BLDR) | 100 | 381.9 | +281.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TMHC vs HD vs LOW vs FND vs BLDR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TMHC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.92, Low D/E 37.4%, current ratio 6.24x
- PEG 0.34 vs FND's 30.50
- Lower P/E (11.2x vs 14.1x), PEG 0.34 vs 1.78
- 8.8% margin vs BLDR's 2.0%
HD carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 16 yrs, beta 0.84, yield 2.8%
- Beta 0.84, yield 2.8%, current ratio 1.06x
- Beta 0.84 vs FND's 1.80, lower leverage
- 2.8% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs LOW's 2.0%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
LOW ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +5.4% vs FND's -29.8%
FND is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 5.1%, EPS growth 1.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.2%
- 5.1% revenue growth vs BLDR's -7.4%
BLDR is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 6.1% 10Y total return vs TMHC's 321.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 5.1% revenue growth vs BLDR's -7.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.2x vs 14.1x), PEG 0.34 vs 1.78 | |
| Quality / Margins | 8.8% margin vs BLDR's 2.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.84 vs FND's 1.80, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.8% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs LOW's 2.0%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +5.4% vs FND's -29.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.5% ROA vs BLDR's 2.6%, ROIC 32.1% vs 6.4% |
TMHC vs HD vs LOW vs FND vs BLDR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TMHC vs HD vs LOW vs FND vs BLDR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
TMHC leads in 3 of 6 categories
HD leads 1 • LOW leads 0 • FND leads 0 • BLDR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TMHC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HD is the larger business by revenue, generating $164.7B annually — 35.2x FND's $4.7B. TMHC is the more profitable business, keeping 8.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BLDR's 2.0%. On growth, LOW holds the edge at +10.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $7.6B | $164.7B | $86.3B | $4.7B | $14.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.0B | $24.2B | $12.3B | $443M | $1.2B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $672M | $14.2B | $6.7B | $199M | $292M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $710M | $12.6B | $7.7B | $105M | $862M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +22.4% | +33.3% | +33.5% | +41.2% | +29.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +13.2% | +12.7% | +11.8% | +5.7% | +4.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +8.8% | +8.6% | +7.7% | +4.3% | +2.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +9.3% | +7.7% | +8.9% | +2.3% | +5.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -26.8% | -3.8% | +10.9% | -0.7% | -10.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -51.2% | -14.6% | -11.0% | -17.8% | -151.2% |
Valuation Metrics
TMHC leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 7.7x trailing earnings, TMHC trades at a 71% valuation discount to FND's 26.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), TMHC offers better value at 0.23x vs FND's 30.50x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $5.6B | $320.7B | $129.3B | $5.6B | $8.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7.1B | $338.3B | $135.5B | $9.0B | $14.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 7.65x | 22.67x | 19.48x | 26.83x | 20.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.22x | 21.47x | 18.34x | 26.08x | 14.07x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.23x | 6.35x | 2.20x | 30.50x | 2.59x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.18x | 14.00x | 11.20x | 17.39x | 10.35x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.68x | 1.95x | 1.50x | 1.19x | 0.58x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.95x | 25.11x | — | 2.32x | 2.04x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.88x | 25.36x | 16.90x | 86.92x | 10.30x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — TMHC and LOW each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HD delivers a 110.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $110 in annual profit, vs $7 for BLDR. TMHC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.37x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FND's 1.51x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LOW scores 6/9 vs FND's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.8% | +110.5% | — | +8.4% | +6.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.9% | +13.5% | +12.3% | +3.9% | +2.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.0% | +32.1% | +76.2% | +4.4% | +6.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +13.2% | +29.8% | +33.6% | +6.9% | +8.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.37x | 1.48x | — | 1.51x | 1.30x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.5B | $17.6B | $6.2B | $3.4B | $5.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $851M | $1.4B | $982M | $249M | $182M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.4B | $19.0B | $7.2B | $3.6B | $5.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 19.94x | 8.71x | 8.90x | 22.72x | 2.19x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
TMHC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in TMHC five years ago would be worth $18,573 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,540 for FND. Over the past 12 months, LOW leads with a +5.4% total return vs FND's -29.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TMHC at 11.2% vs FND's -17.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.1% | -6.0% | -5.5% | -18.2% | -24.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +2.0% | -8.5% | +5.4% | -29.8% | -25.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +37.4% | +21.4% | +19.9% | -44.0% | -30.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +85.7% | +7.3% | +21.0% | -54.6% | +51.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +321.2% | +184.0% | +244.9% | +60.7% | +614.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +11.2% | +6.7% | +6.2% | -17.6% | -11.2% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TMHC and HD each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HD is the less volatile stock with a 0.84 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FND's 1.80 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TMHC currently trades 82.0% from its 52-week high vs BLDR's 52.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.92x | 0.84x | 0.86x | 1.80x | 1.65x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $72.50 | $426.75 | $293.06 | $92.41 | $151.03 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $54.58 | $310.42 | $210.33 | $46.47 | $73.40 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +82.0% | +75.6% | +78.8% | +55.8% | +52.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 49.0 | 43.1 | 44.4 | 48.7 | 42.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.1M | 3.6M | 2.2M | 2.7M | 2.4M |
Analyst Outlook
HD leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TMHC as "Buy", HD as "Buy", LOW as "Buy", FND as "Hold", BLDR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 38.3% upside for BLDR (target: $110) vs 22.6% for FND (target: $63). For income investors, HD offers the higher dividend yield at 2.84% vs LOW's 2.04%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $73.75 | $408.08 | $288.25 | $63.18 | $109.92 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 30 | 62 | 51 | 37 | 43 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.8% | +2.0% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 16 | 16 | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $9.18 | $4.71 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +6.9% | 0.0% | +0.2% | 0.0% | +4.7% |
TMHC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). HD leads in 1 (Analyst Outlook). 2 tied.
TMHC vs HD vs LOW vs FND vs BLDR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc.
(FND) is the stronger pick with 5. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -7. 4% for Builders FirstSource, Inc. (BLDR). Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) offers the better valuation at 7. 7x trailing P/E (11. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) a "Buy" — based on 30 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.
02Which has the better valuation — TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR?
On trailing P/E, Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) is the cheapest at 7.
7x versus Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. at 26. 8x. On forward P/E, Taylor Morrison Home Corporation is actually cheaper at 11. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Taylor Morrison Home Corporation wins at 0. 34x versus Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. 's 30. 50x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR?
Over the past 5 years, Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) delivered a total return of +85.
7%, compared to -54. 6% for Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. (FND). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BLDR returned +614. 8% versus FND's +60. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Home Depot, Inc.
(HD) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 84β versus Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 80β — meaning FND is approximately 115% more volatile than HD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 37% versus 151% for Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc.
(FND) is pulling ahead at 5. 1% versus -7. 4% for Builders FirstSource, Inc. (BLDR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 1. 1% year-over-year, compared to -57. 1% for Builders FirstSource, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FND leads at 3. 2% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR?
Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) is the more profitable company, earning 9.
6% net margin versus 2. 9% for Builders FirstSource, Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TMHC leads at 14. 0% versus 5. 2% for BLDR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FND leads at 41. 1%, 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.
07Is TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR more undervalued right now?
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, Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 34x versus Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. 's 30. 50x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Taylor Morrison Home Corporation (TMHC) trades at 11. 2x forward P/E versus 26. 1x for Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. — 14. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BLDR: 38. 3% to $109. 92.
08Which pays a better dividend — TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR?
In this comparison, HD (2.
8% yield), LOW (2. 0% yield) pay a dividend. TMHC, FND, BLDR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TMHC or HD or LOW or FND or BLDR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Lowe's Companies, Inc.
(LOW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 86), 2. 0% yield, +244. 9% 10Y return). Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. (FND) carries a higher beta of 1. 80 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LOW: +244. 9%, FND: +60. 7%), 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.
10What are the main differences between TMHC and HD and LOW and FND and BLDR?
These companies operate in different sectors (TMHC (Consumer Cyclical) and HD (Consumer Cyclical) and LOW (Consumer Cyclical) and FND (Consumer Cyclical) and BLDR (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: TMHC is a small-cap deep-value stock; HD is a large-cap quality compounder stock; LOW is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; FND is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BLDR is a small-cap quality compounder stock. HD, LOW pay a dividend while TMHC, FND, BLDR 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.