Barratt Redrow v Persimmon: Bricks, mortar and billions: who is winning the UK housing war?

Which housebuilder is bigger, Barratt Redrow or Persimmon?

Barratt Redrow, on every measure of size the filings carry. Turnover of £5,578m is 1.49x Persimmon's £3,751m, a gap of £1,827m, and the headcount gap runs in the same direction at 7,756 against 4,574, or 1.70x.

The size gap widens on the balance sheet. Barratt Redrow's net assets of £7,873m are 2.18x Persimmon's £3,614m, and its current assets of £9,631m are close to double Persimmon's £4,864m. Both figures are group positions on a consolidated filing, so the subsidiaries sit inside them rather than alongside them.

Growth is where the two diverge in kind rather than degree. Barratt Redrow's turnover rose 33.8% and its headcount 20.2%, movements that reflect a year reported by an enlarged group following the Redrow acquisition rather than growth in demand. Persimmon's turnover rose 17.2% on a headcount that was effectively flat, up 0.8%.

Which one makes more money on what it builds?

Persimmon, by £123m. Estimated pre-tax profit of £397m against £274m puts the smaller company ahead in cash terms as well as proportionate ones, and the margin gap is the reason: 10.6% against 4.9%, so Persimmon converts turnover into profit at 2.15x the rate.

On a per-head basis the gap is wider still. Persimmon's estimated pre-tax profit works out at roughly £87,000 for every person it employs. Barratt Redrow's works out at roughly £35,000, about 2.46x less.

Direction of travel favours Barratt Redrow on the year, from a lower base. Its estimated pre-tax profit rose from £171m to £274m, a movement of 60.2%, against a rise from £359m to £397m at Persimmon, a movement of 10.6%. The Barratt Redrow prior year figure is a standalone one and the current year is an enlarged group, so the percentage measures a change in what is being reported as much as a change in trading.

Which balance sheet is built more conservatively?

They are conservative in different places. Barratt Redrow holds £970m of cash, 8.3x Persimmon's £117m, but also carries £627m of estimated borrowings against none recorded for Persimmon. Net of those borrowings, Barratt Redrow's cash position comes to £343m.

On capital employed the picture reverses. Barratt Redrow's estimated pre-tax profit is 3.5% of its £7,873m of net assets. Persimmon's is 11.0% of its £3,614m. The larger asset base is doing proportionately less work, which is the same fact the margin gap describes, seen from the balance sheet instead of the profit and loss.

Two smaller items are worth noting because they cut against the size ordering. Persimmon reports £179m of trade debtors against £108m at Barratt Redrow, so the smaller company is owed more despite turning over £1,827m less. And Persimmon reports £38m of interest payable with no borrowings recorded in the dataset, so its financing charge sits outside anything the borrowings estimate captures.

What do the payroll figures say about how each firm is staffed?

Barratt Redrow runs a bigger and a more expensive payroll on both counts. Staff costs of £668m across 7,756 people average £86,000 per head, against £320m across 4,574 people and £70,000 at Persimmon, a gap of £16,000 or 23%.

The compounding effect is what shows up in the margin. Because Barratt Redrow employs 1.70x the people at 1.23x the average cost, on turnover only 1.49x larger, payroll absorbs £11.98 of every £100 of turnover against £8.53 at Persimmon. That single line accounts for roughly £3.45 of the £5.67 margin gap between the two.

Headcount moved in different directions this year as well. Barratt Redrow's rose 20.2%, consistent with a year reported by an enlarged group. Persimmon's rose 0.8%, close to flat, while its turnover rose 17.2%, which is why its turnover per employee sits higher at £820,000 against £719,000.

Who controls each company, and what is secured against them?

Neither company has a controlling owner on the register. Both are listed public companies with no persons of significant control recorded and no 75% direct owner in the dataset, which is the normal position for a company whose shares trade on a regulated market. Control sits with the board and the shareholder register rather than with an identifiable holder.

Boards are the same size and turning over at different speeds. Each company shows ten officers with no resignation date recorded. At Barratt Redrow six resignations are recorded across 2025 and 2026, with four of the current ten appointed in 2024 or later, and the longest serving current director appointed in 2009. At Persimmon one resignation is recorded over the same window, three of the current ten were appointed in 2024 or later, and the longest serving current director dates to 2016.

The charge registers point in opposite directions in time. Barratt Redrow carries a run of Lloyds Bank charges dated 2021, 2022 and April 2025, alongside older security going back to 1980. The most recent charge recorded against Persimmon is dated 2013, and the rest of its register sits between 1984 and 1998, with two entries marked discharged in 1991.

Registered property titles show the same asymmetry of disclosure rather than of scale. Persimmon has 23 titles in the extract, of which one carries a disclosed price, £0.2m for a freehold in Leamington Spa in April 2024. Barratt Redrow has three titles, none with a disclosed price. Prices recorded as zero mean not disclosed or nominal, so no total can be read from either register.

How were these figures put together?

Common questions