Compare StocksAFL vs INTC

Aflac Incorporated (AFL) vs Intel Corporation (INTC): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, AFL is undervalued at $115, with a DCF intrinsic value of $199 and a margin of safety of 42%. INTC is overvalued at $134, with an intrinsic value of $8 and a margin of safety of -1513%. Of the two, AFL has the wider margin of safety.

AFL
Aflac Incorporated
$115.47
VS
INTC
Intel Corporation
$133.99

Rewards

AFL
  • Share count has been reduced by 16% over the past 4 years through buybacks, increasing each share's claim on earnings.
  • FCF yield of 8.4% is historically attractive — the business generates significant cash relative to its price.
INTC

    Risks

    AFL
    • Altman Z-Score of 1.20 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
    • 7 insider sales totaling $2.5M with no purchases in the past 3 months — insiders are reducing their exposure.
    • Free cash flow has declined at a 13.0% CAGR over the past 4 years — a concerning trend.
    INTC
    • Intel Corporation scores only 17/100 on the Economic Moat Score, suggesting limited durable competitive advantages.
    • Share count has increased by 21% over the past 4 years, diluting existing shareholders.
    • Insiders have sold $6.5M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.

    Key Valuation Metrics

    Learn more →
    AFL
    INTC
    Valuation
    $4.92B
    Free Cash Flow
    $-8.30B
    8.38%
    FCF Yield
    -1.23%
    13.20
    Trailing P/E
    N/A
    15.19
    Forward P/E
    86.70
    Quality & Moat
    9.52%
    ROIC
    1.72%
    16.47%
    ROE
    -2.91%
    50.05%
    Gross Margin
    37.20%
    1.18
    PEG Ratio
    1.36
    Balance Sheet Safety
    0.21
    Net Debt / Equity
    0.10
    N/A
    Interest Coverage
    N/A
    1.05
    Net Debt / EBITDA
    0.86
    2.08%
    Dividend Yield
    0.00%
    AFL: 8Ties: 1INTC: 2
    AFLINTC

    Historical Fundamentals

    Learn more →
    AFL

    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.

    INTC

    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 →
    AFL
    $1.23
    created per $1 retained over 3 years
    Value Creator
    Σ Retained
    $10.50B
    Δ Market Cap
    +$12.93B
    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
    INTC
    N/A
    Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
    Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
    Σ Retained
    $-22.02B
    Δ Market Cap
    +$74.94B
    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

    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 →
    AFL
    41.8% Margin of Safety
    Price is 41.8% below estimated fair value
    Current Price: $115.47
    Fair Value: $198.53
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued
    INTC
    Insufficient Data
    Enter initial FCF to calculate intrinsic value
    Current Price: $133.99
    Fair Value: $0.00
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued

    Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

    Learn more →
    AFL

    What growth rate is the market pricing in at $115?

    +2.0%
    Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

    Market above historical growth — verify catalysts.

    INTC

    Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

    Economic Moat Score

    Learn more →
    AFL
    65/100
    Narrow Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    Narrow moat with revenue predictability as the key competitive advantage. Improving reinvestment efficiency would strengthen the moat.

    Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.
    INTC
    17/100
    No Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    No durable moat detected, though revenue predictability shows some competitive positioning. The business lacks consistent evidence of sustainable advantages.

    Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 5 years of fundamental data.

    Forensic Accounting

    Learn more →
    AFL
    -2.40
    Unlikely Manipulator
    Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

    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.
    INTC
    -2.83
    Unlikely Manipulator
    Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone
    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.

    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 →
    AFL
    Insiders 10.9%Institutions 59.9%Retail & Other 29.3%
    No. of Institutional Holders2,118
    High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
    INTC
    Insiders 14.7%Institutions 64.0%Retail & Other 21.2%
    No. of Institutional Holders3,349
    High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

    High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

    Insider Buying Activity

    Learn more →
    AFL
    0
    Buys (3M)
    0
    Buys (12M)
    No open market insider purchases found.
    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
    INTC
    0
    Buys (3M)
    1
    Buys (12M)
    Total value (12M): $249,985
    ZINSNER DAVID A
    Chief Financial Officer
    $249,985
    @ $42.50 · 2026-01-26
    GELSINGER PATRICK P
    Chief Executive Officer
    $251,198
    @ $22.53 · 2024-11-04
    GELSINGER PATRICK P
    Chief Executive Officer
    $251,946
    @ $20.16 · 2024-08-05
    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises

    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.

    Insider Selling Activity

    Learn more →
    AFL
    7
    Sells (3M)
    20
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $11.99M
    BEAVER STEVEN KENT
    Officer
    $648,897
    @ $117.81 · 2026-05-22
    KENNY THOMAS J
    Director
    $202,832
    @ $116.57 · 2026-05-15
    COLLINS ARTHUR REGINALD
    Director
    $268,065
    @ $116.55 · 2026-05-14
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $68,238
    @ $113.73 · 2026-05-08
    HOSODA MIWAKO
    Director
    $27,824
    @ $114.50 · 2026-05-06
    LAKE CHARLES D II
    Officer
    $737,308
    @ $113.43 · 2026-05-05
    LAKE CHARLES D II
    Officer
    $536,365
    @ $107.27 · 2026-03-25
    KOIDE MASATOSHI
    Officer
    $1.70M
    @ $109.93 · 2026-03-11
    LAKE CHARLES D II
    Officer
    $1.71M
    @ $109.93 · 2026-03-11
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $66,054
    @ $110.09 · 2026-03-09
    BEAVER STEVEN KENT
    Officer
    $839,015
    @ $113.58 · 2026-02-20
    BRODEN MAX
    Chief Financial Officer
    $1.53M
    @ $117.67 · 2026-02-06
    BEAVER STEVEN KENT
    Officer
    $601,520
    @ $109.53 · 2025-12-12
    BEAVER STEVEN KENT
    Officer
    $377,166
    @ $109.26 · 2025-12-05
    TILLMAN AUDREY BOONE
    Officer
    $1.78M
    @ $112.00 · 2025-11-18
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $89,404
    @ $113.75 · 2025-11-17
    TILLMAN AUDREY BOONE
    Officer
    $397,325
    @ $115.10 · 2025-11-14
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $114,000
    @ $114.00 · 2025-11-07
    SIMARD FREDERIC JEAN GUY
    Officer
    $193,725
    @ $112.50 · 2025-11-06
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $102,570
    @ $102.57 · 2025-08-08
    KOIDE MASATOSHI
    Officer
    $3.91M
    @ $105.59 · 2025-05-20
    COLLINS ARTHUR REGINALD
    Director
    $290,689
    @ $105.71 · 2025-05-15
    KENNY THOMAS J
    Director
    $762,238
    @ $106.34 · 2025-05-09
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $106,790
    @ $106.79 · 2025-05-08
    LAKE CHARLES D II
    Officer
    $5.69M
    @ $107.44 · 2025-03-10
    KOIDE MASATOSHI
    Officer
    $2.36M
    @ $107.63 · 2025-03-07
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $107,630
    @ $107.63 · 2025-03-07
    TILLMAN AUDREY BOONE
    Officer
    $2.56M
    @ $103.40 · 2024-12-27
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $64,998
    @ $108.33 · 2024-11-08
    MOSKOWITZ JOSEPH L
    Director
    $59,730
    @ $99.55 · 2024-08-08
    KENNY THOMAS J
    Director
    $197,890
    @ $98.94 · 2024-08-07
    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
    INTC
    2
    Sells (3M)
    3
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $7.47M
    CHANDRASEKARAN NAGASUBRAMANIYAN
    Chief Technology Officer
    $2.49M
    @ $118.28 · 2026-05-29
    MILLER BOISE APRIL
    Officer
    $4.01M
    @ $99.53 · 2026-05-01
    MILLER BOISE APRIL
    Officer
    $981,000
    @ $49.05 · 2026-02-02
    HOLTHAUS MICHELLE JOHNSTON
    General Counsel
    $650,000
    @ $26.00 · 2024-11-07
    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives

    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.

    🎭 Mr. Market's Mood

    Learn more →
    AFL
    FearGreed
    😏Greed(66/100)

    "Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

    Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
    INTC
    FearGreed
    😏Greed(65/100)

    "Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

    Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

    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 →
    AFL
    Awaiting DCF Data

    The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

    DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Greed (66)
    INTC
    Awaiting DCF Data

    The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

    DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Greed (65)
    View AFL Full AnalysisView INTC Full Analysis

    Frequently Asked Questions: AFL vs INTC

    Is Aflac Incorporated or Intel Corporation more undervalued in 2026?

    Based on our discounted cash flow model, AFL trades at a 41.8% margin of safety (intrinsic value $199 vs. price $115), compared to INTC's -1512.6% margin of safety (intrinsic $8 vs. $134).

    Which stock has a wider economic moat, Aflac Incorporated or Intel Corporation?

    AFL scores 65/100 (Narrow moat), while INTC scores 17/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

    Is Aflac Incorporated in financial distress?

    AFL's Altman Z-Score of 1.2 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. INTC scores 2.1 (Grey 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, Aflac Incorporated or Intel Corporation?

    Aflac Incorporated (AFL) generates a 8.4% free cash flow yield, compared to Intel Corporation's -1.2%. 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, Aflac Incorporated or Intel Corporation?

    AFL earns 9.5% ROIC versus INTC's 1.7%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.