Compare StocksAMD vs INVH

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) vs Invitation Homes Inc. (INVH): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, AMD is overvalued at $537, with a DCF intrinsic value of $219 and a margin of safety of -145%. INVH is overvalued at $28, with an intrinsic value of $24 and a margin of safety of -16%. Of the two, INVH has the wider margin of safety.

AMD
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
$537.37
VS
INVH
Invitation Homes Inc.
$28.41

Rewards

AMD
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 29.3% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.01 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
  • Management has timed buybacks well — 3 out of 4 years showed value-accretive repurchases.
INVH
  • Trailing P/E of 29.9x is 25% below the historical average of 39.8x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.

Risks

AMD
  • Despite buyback spending, shares outstanding increased in 3 out of 4 years — stock-based compensation is offsetting repurchases.
  • FCF yield of 0.8% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Trailing P/E of 179.7x is 30% above the historical average of 138.5x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
INVH
  • FCF yield of 6.1% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • PEG ratio of 13.14 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • Net debt/EBITDA of 5.8x indicates heavy leverage — it would take over 4 years of EBITDA to pay off net debt.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
AMD
INVH
Valuation
$7.17B
Free Cash Flow
$1.02B
0.82%
FCF Yield
6.05%
179.72
Trailing P/E
29.91
41.01
Forward P/E
42.77
Quality & Moat
6.23%
ROIC
2.96%
8.06%
ROE
6.19%
53.06%
Gross Margin
57.18%
1.22
PEG Ratio
13.14
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
0.96
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
-1.14
Net Debt / EBITDA
5.84
0.00%
Dividend Yield
4.14%
AMD: 6Ties: 2INVH: 4
AMDINVH

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
AMD

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.

INVH

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 →
AMD
$35.82
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$6.83B
Δ Market Cap
+$244.67B
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
INVH
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-478.9M
Δ Market Cap
$-1.15B
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 →
AMD
78.1% Overvalued
Price is 78.1% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $537.37
Fair Value: $301.68
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
INVH
16.3% Overvalued
Price is 16.3% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $28.41
Fair Value: $24.44
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
AMD

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $537?

+34.4%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +32.6%

The market implies +34.4% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +32.6%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

INVH

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $28?

+9.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +10.8%

The market implies +9.9% Owner Earnings growth, roughly in line with history — reasonably priced.

Standard FCF implies +10.8%, reflecting ongoing growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
AMD
41/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with reinvestment efficiency as the key competitive advantage. Improving roic consistency 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.
INVH
63/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with revenue predictability as the key competitive advantage. Improving roic consistency 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.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
AMD
-2.84
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.
INVH
-2.65
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.

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 →
AMD
Insiders 0.4%Institutions 72.2%Retail & Other 27.4%
No. of Institutional Holders4,190
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.
INVH
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 103.0%
No. of Institutional Holders904
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 →
AMD
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
GUIDO PHILIP
Officer
$999,328
@ $113.56 · 2025-05-20
GUIDO PHILIP
Officer
$499,616
@ $107.56 · 2025-02-07
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
INVH
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
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 →
AMD
8
Sells (3M)
31
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $308.72M
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$57.59M
@ $460.69 · 2026-06-10
DENZEL NORA M
Director
$5.45M
@ $522.00 · 2026-06-02
NORROD FORREST EUGENE
Officer
$8.41M
@ $431.40 · 2026-05-20
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$55.69M
@ $445.51 · 2026-05-13
GRASBY PAUL DARREN
Officer
$10.83M
@ $444.39 · 2026-05-08
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$10.96M
@ $350.00 · 2026-04-24
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$8.99M
@ $271.47 · 2026-04-16
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$740,925
@ $225.00 · 2026-04-06
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$16.90M
@ $198.77 · 2026-03-12
GRASBY PAUL DARREN
Officer
$1.54M
@ $204.87 · 2026-03-11
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$606,800
@ $200.00 · 2026-03-04
HAHN AVA M
General Counsel
$56,814
@ $198.65 · 2026-02-18
HU JEAN X
Chief Financial Officer
$4.02M
@ $201.62 · 2026-02-17
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$26.79M
@ $214.36 · 2026-02-11
NORROD FORREST EUGENE
Officer
$4.22M
@ $216.81 · 2026-02-11
HAHN AVA M
General Counsel
$572,454
@ $234.42 · 2026-01-16
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$26.89M
@ $215.14 · 2025-12-11
GRASBY PAUL DARREN
Officer
$2.19M
@ $218.77 · 2025-12-04
HU JEAN X
Chief Financial Officer
$3.05M
@ $209.96 · 2025-11-24
NORROD FORREST EUGENE
Officer
$4.46M
@ $229.37 · 2025-11-19
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$4.11M
@ $240.12 · 2025-11-14
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$3.77M
@ $224.28 · 2025-10-15
HAHN AVA M
General Counsel
$648,197
@ $226.01 · 2025-10-06
NORROD FORREST EUGENE
Officer
$371,272
@ $165.01 · 2025-09-24
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$2.67M
@ $159.20 · 2025-09-15
NORROD FORREST EUGENE
Officer
$2.77M
@ $160.93 · 2025-09-10
HAHN AVA M
General Counsel
$22,608
@ $158.10 · 2025-09-02
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$36.89M
@ $163.97 · 2025-08-21
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$2.99M
@ $178.11 · 2025-08-15
GRASBY PAUL DARREN
Officer
$1.73M
@ $173.21 · 2025-08-12
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$2.79M
@ $155.03 · 2025-07-15
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$2.03M
@ $116.00 · 2025-06-13
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$2.04M
@ $116.59 · 2025-05-15
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$1.67M
@ $95.47 · 2025-04-15
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$1.75M
@ $100.27 · 2025-03-14
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$1.99M
@ $113.57 · 2025-02-14
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$10.91M
@ $142.66 · 2024-12-04
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$10.91M
@ $142.66 · 2024-12-04
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$11.51M
@ $143.87 · 2024-11-06
NORROD FORREST EUGENE
Officer
$5.74M
@ $141.67 · 2024-11-05
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$11.58M
@ $144.72 · 2024-09-11
SU LISA T
Chief Executive Officer
$12.60M
@ $157.44 · 2024-08-20
PAPERMASTER MARK D
Chief Technology Officer
$3.09M
@ $184.50 · 2024-07-15
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
INVH
0
Sells (3M)
0
Sells (12M)
TANNER DALLAS BRADFORD
Chief Executive Officer
$4.97M
@ $33.41 · 2025-06-13
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 →
AMD
FearGreed
😏Greed(61/100)

"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.
INVH
FearGreed
😐Neutral(44/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

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 →
AMD
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 (61)
INVH
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: Neutral (44)
View AMD Full AnalysisView INVH Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: AMD vs INVH

Is Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or Invitation Homes Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, INVH trades at a -16.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $24 vs. price $28), compared to AMD's -144.8% margin of safety (intrinsic $219 vs. $537).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or Invitation Homes Inc.?

INVH scores 63/100 (Narrow moat), while AMD scores 41/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Invitation Homes Inc. in financial distress?

INVH's Altman Z-Score of 1.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. AMD scores 16.0 (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, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or Invitation Homes Inc.?

Invitation Homes Inc. (INVH) generates a 6.1% free cash flow yield, compared to Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s 0.8%. 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, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. or Invitation Homes Inc.?

AMD earns 6.2% ROIC versus INVH's 3.0%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.