LEN vs MTH Stock Comparison
MTH currently leads LEN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 48. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between LEN and MTH?
MTH leads the current stock comparison as Meritage Homes Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lennar Corporation vs Meritage Homes Corporation
MTH leads
MTH leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MTH, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lennar Corporation
Meritage Homes Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTH over LEN, 49 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. MTH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. MTH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MTH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lennar Corporation and Meritage Homes Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare LEN and MTH against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience55 vs 59MTH +4
- Momentum38 vs 35Even
- Quality37 vs 39Even
- Value63 vs 65Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MTH. MTH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
MTH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LEN and MTH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTH (Meritage Homes Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
LEN (Lennar Corporation): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 43.7% against 35.2%.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
MTHMTH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTHMTH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MTHMTH on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
MTHMTH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | LEN | MTH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.2% | +36.5% | MTH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.8% | +34.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Sell | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 48 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | MTHon balance | revenue growth 19.9% vs 31%; EPS growth 30.9% vs 67.1%; TTM ROE 7.4% vs 6.4%; gross margin 8% vs 18.9%; operating margin 6% vs 8.4% — MTH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 63 vs 65 |
| Technicals | LEN | Price vs 50-day -4.6% vs -9.8%; vs 200-day -14.9% vs -13% |
| Risk Resilience | MTH | Risk Resilience 55 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | MTH | Target upside 0.2% vs 36.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LEN and MTH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on MTH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MTH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MTH +1
- 48 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- MTH +1
- 46 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 51 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- MTH +2
- 50 vs 52
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when MTH moved ahead of LEN.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
LEN and MTH carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
MTH leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.21%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.51%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1LEN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTH's edge.
- 2LEN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MTH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
MTH leads on balance| Metric | LEN | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 19.9% | 31% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.9% | 67.1% |
| Gross margin | 8% | 18.9% |
| Operating margin | 6% | 8.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.4% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.37 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LEN | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5% | 3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.3% | -9.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.3% | -16.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17% | -13.3% |
| Year to date | -23.5% | -8.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -36% | -13.7% |
Technicals
LEN has the stronger structure| Metric | LEN | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.6 | 42.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.6% | -9.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.9% | -13% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.7% | 35.2% |
Risk
MTH is the more resilient| Metric | LEN | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.04 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.14 | -0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.93 | -0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -44.8% | -32.1% |
| Current drawdown | -40.9% | -29.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.4% | 38.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LEN or MTH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against LEN's 48. The edge comes from risk resilience. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is LEN or MTH the better buy right now?
MTH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTH over LEN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTH leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LEN or MTH?
Analyst price targets imply +0.2% upside for LEN and +36.5% for MTH, so the Street currently favors MTH. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, LEN or MTH?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, LEN or MTH?
MTH on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, LEN or MTH?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, LEN or MTH?
MTH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MTH on Risk Resilience, by 4 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LEN more profitable than MTH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 8% vs 18.9%; operating margin 6% vs 8.4%; ttm roe 7.4% vs 6.4%. LEN leads on one measure and MTH on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is MTH's lead over LEN getting stronger or weaker?
MTH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when MTH moved ahead of LEN.
What would change the LEN vs MTH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LEN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTH's edge; LEN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MTH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about LEN and MTH?
LEN: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MTH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on LEN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MTH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LEN and MTH with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.