Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IBP scored 42.9, LEN-B scored 34.1 — IBP leads.
Compare another set
IBP
Installed Building Products, Inc.
Residential Construction · Quality-Growth
42.9
$185.44 · $4.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.8
IBP leads
LEN-B
Lennar Corporation
Residential Construction · Quality-Growth
34.1
$76.02 · $18.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLEN-B14.4x
Fastest growthIBP+1.0%
Strongest balance sheetLEN-B0.28
Highest qualityIBP77 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
IBP
stronger →← stronger
LEN-B
77
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
57
30
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
15
34
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
47
IBP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
IBP
LEN-B
$292mC
FCF
$811mC+
+1.0%C
Rev
-8.0%D
1.87C+
D/E
0.28A-
20.0xB
P/E
14.4xB+
—
PEG
11.11D
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
IBP
LEN-B
90% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
110% above
~19%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~21%/yr
-45%
1-yr DCF upside
-50%
-47%
5-yr DCF upside
-52%
-50%
10-yr DCF upside
-55%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
IBP
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
LEN-B
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
IBPInstalled Building Products, Inc.
Residential Construction · $185.44 · beta 1.72
Why now
Residential Construction · market cap $4.9b. Down 47% from 52-week high of $349.00 — deep drawdown territory. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $230.08 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 116% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 47% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.72 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
LEN-BLennar Corporation
Residential Construction · $76.02 · beta 1.38
Why now
Residential Construction · market cap $18.1b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $125.48 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -8% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating.
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Revenue contracting -8% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Down 39% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 4.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where IBP and LEN-B diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.8 points in favor of IBP. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityIBP 76.9 · LEN-B 56.7IBP +20.2
GrowthIBP 29.7 · LEN-B 14.7IBP +15.0
ValueIBP 34.5 · LEN-B 47.4LEN-B +12.9
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is IBP or LEN-B the better stock?
IBP scores higher: IBP 42.9, LEN-B 34.1 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do IBP and LEN-B differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where IBP leads by 20 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are IBP and LEN-B scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.