Is IBP or LEN-B the better stock?

IBP scores higher: IBP 48.2, LEN-B 26.2 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 growth, where IBP leads by 31 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. IBP leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.

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.

COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026

IBP vs LEN-B

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IBP scored 48.2, LEN-B scored 26.2 — IBP leads.

Compare another set

IBP

Installed Building Products, Inc.

Residential Construction · Quality-Growth

48.2

$246.98 · $6.6B

fundamentals as of Jun 2026

Score gap

22.0

IBP leads

LEN-B

Lennar Corporation

Residential Construction · Quality-Growth

26.2

$83.45 · $20.1B

fundamentals as of May 2026

At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules

CheapestLEN-B13.1x
Fastest growthIBP+0.3%
Strongest balance sheetLEN-B0.29
Highest qualityIBP76 / 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

Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet

Growthrevenue & earnings expansion

Valuevaluation vs sector peers

IBP is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.

Fundamentals, head-to-head

IBP

LEN-B

$292mC

FCF

$717mC+

+0.3%C

Rev

-7.4%D

1.87C+

D/E

0.29A-

26.4xC+

P/E

13.1xA-

2.92C

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

110% above

Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper

201% above

~27%/yr

Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in

~27%/yr

-56%

1-yr DCF upside

-63%

-52%

5-yr DCF upside

-67%

-47%

10-yr DCF upside

-71%

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 · $246.98 · beta 1.72

Why now

Residential Construction · market cap $6.6b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $349.00 — deep drawdown territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $244.82 (implying -1% upside).

Moat

ROE 39% — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.

Risk

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 · $83.45 · beta 1.40

Why now

Residential Construction · market cap $20.1b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $137.39 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue -7% — 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 -7% — 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 4.9% 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 22.0 points in favor of IBP. The widest single difference is Growth, where IBP leads by 31.3 points.

GrowthIBP 46.0 · LEN-B 14.7IBP +31.3
QualityIBP 76.2 · LEN-B 63.0IBP +13.2
ValueIBP 31.9 · LEN-B 19.4IBP +12.5

Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.