Adobe Inc. (ADBE) vs Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?
As of 2026-06-19, ADBE is undervalued at $195, with a DCF intrinsic value of $558 and a margin of safety of 65%. FANG is overvalued at $184, with an intrinsic value of $128 and a margin of safety of -44%. Of the two, ADBE has the wider margin of safety.
Rewards
- ★Adobe Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
- ★Gross margin of 89.4% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
- ★Adobe Inc. scores 100/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
- ★Gross margin of 72.2% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
Risks
- ⚠ROIC has declined by 16.4 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
- ⚠Diamondback Energy, Inc. scores only 14/100 on the Economic Moat Score, suggesting limited durable competitive advantages.
- ⚠Share count has increased by 58% over the past 4 years, diluting existing shareholders.
Key Valuation Metrics
Learn more →Historical Fundamentals
Learn more →Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.
Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.
Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.
$1 Retained Earnings Test
Learn more →> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis
Learn more →Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth
Learn more →What growth rate is the market pricing in at $195?
The market implies -1.6% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.
Standard FCF implies a more demanding -4.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.
What growth rate is the market pricing in at $184?
The market implies +16.9% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.
Standard FCF implies a demanding +19.3%, reflecting heavy growth investment.
Economic Moat Score
Learn more →Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. ROIC Consistency is the standout factor.
No durable competitive advantage detected. The business shows limited evidence of pricing power, consistent returns, or capital efficiency.
Forensic Accounting
Learn more →M-Score Trend
M-Score Trend
Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.
Ownership Breakdown
Learn more →High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
Insider Buying Activity
Learn more →Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.
Insider Selling Activity
Learn more →Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.
🎭 Mr. Market's Mood
Learn more →"Mr. Market is panicking — potential buying opportunity if fundamentals are strong"
"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"
Composite sentiment score based on market signals. Inspired by Buffett’s "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
⚖️ Buffett Signal
Learn more →The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
Frequently Asked Questions: ADBE vs FANG
Is Adobe Inc. or Diamondback Energy, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?▼
Based on our discounted cash flow model, ADBE trades at a 65.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $558 vs. price $195), compared to FANG's -43.9% margin of safety (intrinsic $128 vs. $184).
Which stock has a wider economic moat, Adobe Inc. or Diamondback Energy, Inc.?▼
ADBE scores 100/100 (Wide moat), while FANG scores 14/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.
Is Diamondback Energy, Inc. in financial distress?▼
FANG's Altman Z-Score of 1.4 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. ADBE scores 8.8 (Safe zone). The Altman Z-Score is a five-factor model that predicts insolvency within two years; scores below 1.81 indicate significant distress.
Which company has better free cash flow, Adobe Inc. or Diamondback Energy, Inc.?▼
Adobe Inc. (ADBE) generates a 11.9% free cash flow yield, compared to Diamondback Energy, Inc.'s 2.7%. A higher FCF yield means the business converts more of its market value into cash that can be returned to shareholders or reinvested.
Which stock has higher return on invested capital, Adobe Inc. or Diamondback Energy, Inc.?▼
ADBE earns 37.8% ROIC versus FANG's 1.2%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.