The structural profiles are close, with Toll Brothers carrying a narrow edge on growth. Marriott International still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Marriott International carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Toll Brothers's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Toll Brothers, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest score difference appears in growth.
These two companies are linked by measured long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
A solid similarity means the pair shares a clearly comparable long-term financial profile, even if individual dimensions still differ.
The strongest overlap appears in revenue stability and capital structure.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Marriott International, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Profitability still favours Marriott International, with a 33-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The page question resolves through growth, but profitability and current pricing still keep the broader comparison from reading as fully aligned.
Break down the MAR vs TOL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MAR and TOL each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.