MTH vs PHM Stock Comparison
Compare MTH and PHM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MTH and PHM?
PHM leads the current stock comparison as PulteGroup, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Meritage Homes Corporation vs PulteGroup, Inc.
PHM leads
PHM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors MTH on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PHM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Meritage Homes Corporation
PulteGroup, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PHM over MTH, 52 versus 48 as of Sep 6, 2026. PHM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while MTH holds the stronger value profile. PHM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MTH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PHM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. PHM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Meritage Homes Corporation and PulteGroup, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MTH and PHM 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.
- Quality30%39 vs 53PHM +14
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 72PHM +11
- Value30%65 vs 56MTH +9
- Momentum25%29 vs 33PHM +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PHM. PHM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; MTH keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
PHM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTH and PHM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PHM (PulteGroup, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
MTH (Meritage Homes Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 34.9% against 27.8%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
PHMPHM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MTHMTH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MTHMTH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
PHMPHM on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
PHMPHM on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
MTHMTH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PHM, analyst targets favor MTH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MTH | PHM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.8% | +15.5% | MTH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15% | +34.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PHM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PHM | 48 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | PHMon balance | revenue growth 31% vs 16.9%; EPS growth 67.1% vs 35.9%; TTM ROE 6.4% vs 14.7%; gross margin 18.9% vs 24.5%; operating margin 8.4% vs 14.6% — PHM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MTH | Value 65 vs 56 |
| Technicals | PHM | Price vs 50-day -8.7% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -4.3% vs -0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | PHM | Risk Resilience 61 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | MTH | Target upside 28.8% vs 15.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTH and PHM 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 4 points. (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 PHM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5PHM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PHM +4
- 48 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- PHM +6
- 47 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- PHM +6
- 52 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- PHM +3
- 59 vs 62
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jun 11 when PHM moved ahead of MTH.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.82%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.85%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PHM 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.11%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1MTH closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to PHM's edge.
- 2MTH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PHM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
PHM leads on balance| Metric | MTH | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 31% | 16.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 67.1% | 35.9% |
| Gross margin | 18.9% | 24.5% |
| Operating margin | 8.4% | 14.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.4% | 14.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.37 | 0.18 |
Performance
PHM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MTH | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.7% | -6.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.5% | 5.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.5% | -2.7% |
| Year to date | 2.3% | 6.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.3% | -6.5% |
Technicals
PHM has the stronger structure| Metric | MTH | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.4 | 42.2 |
| ADX (14) | 14.8 | 11.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.7% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.3% | -0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.9% | 27.8% |
Risk
PHM is the more resilient| Metric | MTH | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.98 | 0.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | -0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.82 | -0.48 |
| Max drawdown | -29.1% | -22.8% |
| Current drawdown | -21% | -12.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.6% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MTH or PHM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PHM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 52 against MTH's 48. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. MTH is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 MTH or PHM the better buy right now?
PHM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PHM over MTH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PHM leads Quality by 14 points; PHM leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; MTH leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MTH or PHM?
Analyst price targets imply +28.8% upside for MTH and +15.5% for PHM, so the Street currently favors MTH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PHM. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, MTH or PHM?
MTH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MTH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. 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, MTH or PHM?
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, MTH or PHM?
PHM on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, MTH or PHM?
PHM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PHM on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MTH more profitable than PHM?
PHM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 18.9% vs 24.5%; operating margin 8.4% vs 14.6%; ttm roe 6.4% vs 14.7%.
Is PHM's lead over MTH getting stronger or weaker?
PHM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-11, when PHM moved ahead of MTH.
What would change the MTH vs PHM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MTH closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to PHM's edge; MTH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PHM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MTH and PHM?
MTH: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PHM: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 MTH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PHM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTH and PHM with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.