UFPI vs MHK

For growth investors, Mohawk Industries, Inc.

(MHK) is the stronger pick with -0. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 0% for UFP Industries, Inc. (UFPI). UFP Industries, Inc. (UFPI) offers the better valuation at 16. 8x trailing P/E (15. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate UFP Industries, Inc. (UFPI) 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, UFP Industries, Inc.

(UFPI) is the cheapest at 16. 8x versus Mohawk Industries, Inc. at 17. 3x. On forward P/E, Mohawk Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, UFP Industries, Inc.

(UFPI) delivered a total return of +1. 5%, compared to -55. 3% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UFPI returned +230. 6% versus MHK's -47. 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), UFP Industries, Inc.

(UFPI) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 92β versus Mohawk Industries, Inc. 's 1. 34β — meaning MHK is approximately 45% more volatile than UFPI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, UFP Industries, Inc. (UFPI) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 33% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Mohawk Industries, Inc.

(MHK) is pulling ahead at -0. 5% versus -5. 0% for UFP Industries, Inc. (UFPI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: UFP Industries, Inc. grew EPS -26. 1% year-over-year, compared to -27. 1% for Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MHK leads at -2. 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.

UFP Industries, Inc.

(UFPI) is the more profitable company, earning 4. 7% net margin versus 3. 4% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. — meaning it keeps 4. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UFPI leads at 5. 8% versus 4. 7% for MHK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MHK leads at 23. 9%, 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, Mohawk Industries, Inc.

(MHK) trades at 11. 2x forward P/E versus 15. 9x for UFP Industries, Inc. — 4. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MHK: 26. 5% to $130. 00.

In this comparison, UFPI (1.

7% yield) pays a dividend. MHK does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, UFP Industries, Inc.

(UFPI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 92), 1. 7% yield, +230. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (UFPI: +230. 6%, MHK: -47. 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 (UFPI (Basic Materials) and MHK (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

UFPI pays a dividend while MHK 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.