Compare StocksAPO vs TSLA

Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO) vs Tesla, Inc. (TSLA): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-21, APO is undervalued at $138, with a DCF intrinsic value of $260 and a margin of safety of 47%. TSLA is overvalued at $400, with an intrinsic value of $131 and a margin of safety of -206%. Of the two, APO has the wider margin of safety.

APO
Apollo Global Management, Inc.
$137.50
VS
TSLA
Tesla, Inc.
$400.49

Rewards

APO
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 24.1% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $5.94 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
  • PEG ratio of 0.73 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.
TSLA
  • Altman Z-Score of 19.94 indicates very low bankruptcy risk — the company is firmly in the safe zone.
  • Net debt/EBITDA of -2.6x means the company holds more cash than debt — a net cash position.

Risks

APO
  • Trailing P/E of 85.9x is 335% above the historical average of 19.7x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.09 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • Insiders have sold $7.3M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
TSLA
  • ROIC has declined by 21.5 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
  • Gross margin of 19.1% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • Share count has increased by 19% over the past 4 years, diluting existing shareholders.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
APO
TSLA
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$5.25B
N/A
FCF Yield
0.35%
85.94
Trailing P/E
370.82
12.96
Forward P/E
160.20
Quality & Moat
4.19%
ROIC
3.23%
8.49%
ROE
4.90%
35.22%
Gross Margin
19.06%
0.73
PEG Ratio
5.72
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
-2.60
1.64%
Dividend Yield
0.00%
APO: 7Ties: 1TSLA: 1
APOTSLA

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
APO

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.

TSLA

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 →
APO
$4.94
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$9.60B
Δ Market Cap
+$47.44B
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
TSLA
$50.04
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$25.92B
Δ Market Cap
+$1.30T
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 →
APO
47.1% Margin of Safety
Price is 47.1% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $137.50
Fair Value: $259.81
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TSLA
626.9% Overvalued
Price is 626.9% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $400.49
Fair Value: $55.09
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
APO

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

TSLA

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $400?

+50.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +45.1%

The market implies +50.2% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +45.1%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
APO
34/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable moat detected, though roic consistency 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.
TSLA
31/100
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 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
APO
-2.31
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.
TSLA
-2.86
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 →
APO
Insiders 27.1%Institutions 71.8%Retail & Other 1.1%
No. of Institutional Holders1,549
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.
TSLA
Insiders 18.7%Institutions 44.9%Retail & Other 36.3%
No. of Institutional Holders5,236
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 →
APO
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
RICHARDS PAULINE D E
Director
$78,071
@ $141.95 · 2025-05-12
LB 2018 GST TRUST
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$67.70M
@ $111.39 · 2025-04-04
BELARDI JAMES RICHARD
Officer and Director
$281.00
@ $281.00 · 2025-02-28
O'NEILL MITRA
Director
$100,053
@ $108.40 · 2024-09-06
RICHARDS PAULINE D E
Director
$246,657
@ $104.92 · 2024-08-06
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
TSLA
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $999.96M
MUSK ELON REEVE
Chief Executive Officer
$999.96M
@ $389.28 · 2025-09-12
GEBBIA JOSEPH
Director
$1.03M
@ $256.31 · 2025-04-24
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 →
APO
2
Sells (3M)
6
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $12.23M
ZITO JOHN P.
Officer
$6.36M
@ $130.66 · 2026-05-27
KELLY MARTIN B
Chief Financial Officer
$942,514
@ $134.64 · 2026-05-14
CHATTERJEE WHITNEY A
Officer
$1.24M
@ $146.03 · 2025-12-10
KELLY MARTIN B
Chief Financial Officer
$788,434
@ $131.41 · 2025-12-01
KELLY MARTIN B
Chief Financial Officer
$2.25M
@ $145.11 · 2025-08-12
CHATTERJEE WHITNEY A
Officer
$657,149
@ $146.03 · 2025-08-06
KELLY MARTIN B
Chief Financial Officer
$530,272
@ $132.57 · 2025-05-06
BLACK LEON D
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$67.70M
@ $111.39 · 2025-04-04
BLACK LEON D
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$71.00M
@ $142.00 · 2025-03-19
KELLY MARTIN B
Chief Financial Officer
$791,378
@ $158.28 · 2025-02-13
KELLY MARTIN B
Chief Financial Officer
$1.74M
@ $173.66 · 2024-12-10
TANGUY LOUIS-JACQUES
Officer
$441,250
@ $176.50 · 2024-12-10
KELLY MARTIN B
Chief Financial Officer
$863,050
@ $172.61 · 2024-12-03
CHATTERJEE WHITNEY A
Officer
$1.07M
@ $173.36 · 2024-12-03
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TSLA
4
Sells (3M)
10
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $62.72M
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.05M
@ $402.27 · 2026-06-08
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.35M
@ $450.00 · 2026-05-13
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$9.99M
@ $378.11 · 2026-04-30
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$9.27M
@ $359.33 · 2026-03-30
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$899,077
@ $397.12 · 2026-03-06
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$10.69M
@ $415.56 · 2026-02-25
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$25.61M
@ $450.66 · 2025-12-09
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.17M
@ $443.93 · 2025-12-08
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$918,137
@ $352.45 · 2025-09-08
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.77M
@ $295.26 · 2025-07-08
ZHU XIAOTONG
Officer
$4.86M
@ $323.81 · 2025-06-12
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$732,573
@ $285.71 · 2025-06-09
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.40M
@ $342.30 · 2025-06-03
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$32.73M
@ $357.39 · 2025-05-27
EHRENPREIS IRA MATTHEW
Director
$170.64M
@ $357.30 · 2025-05-27
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.05M
@ $350.11 · 2025-05-16
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.20M
@ $300.00 · 2025-05-09
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$30.81M
@ $274.12 · 2025-05-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.14M
@ $284.40 · 2025-05-01
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$32.10M
@ $285.58 · 2025-04-29
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.00M
@ $250.00 · 2025-04-07
MURDOCH JAMES RUPERT
Director
$13.19M
@ $240.79 · 2025-03-10
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$718,111
@ $268.75 · 2025-03-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.78M
@ $296.02 · 2025-03-03
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$33.67M
@ $299.61 · 2025-03-03
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$27.59M
@ $367.87 · 2025-02-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.68M
@ $383.11 · 2025-02-03
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$43.16M
@ $384.04 · 2025-02-03
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.89M
@ $413.56 · 2025-01-06
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$41.16M
@ $411.63 · 2025-01-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$975,015
@ $374.29 · 2024-12-06
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$35.25M
@ $352.54 · 2024-12-04
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.48M
@ $354.43 · 2024-12-02
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$39.79M
@ $354.06 · 2024-12-02
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$35.34M
@ $314.44 · 2024-11-15
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$3.80M
@ $316.91 · 2024-11-11
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$34.60M
@ $346.02 · 2024-11-11
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.01M
@ $251.76 · 2024-11-01
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$15.14M
@ $250.23 · 2024-11-01
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.00M
@ $250.00 · 2024-10-24
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.00M
@ $250.00 · 2024-09-23
ZHU XIAOTONG
Officer
$65,867
@ $221.77 · 2024-09-06
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$14.60M
@ $219.96 · 2024-07-25
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 →
APO
FearGreed
😐Neutral(57/100)

"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.
TSLA
FearGreed
😐Neutral(45/100)

"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 →
APO
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 (57)
TSLA
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 (45)
View APO Full AnalysisView TSLA Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: APO vs TSLA

Is Apollo Global Management, Inc. or Tesla, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, APO trades at a 47.1% margin of safety (intrinsic value $260 vs. price $138), compared to TSLA's -206.1% margin of safety (intrinsic $131 vs. $400).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Apollo Global Management, Inc. or Tesla, Inc.?

APO scores 34/100 (None moat), while TSLA scores 31/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Apollo Global Management, Inc. in financial distress?

APO's Altman Z-Score of 0.1 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. TSLA scores 19.9 (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 stock has higher return on invested capital, Apollo Global Management, Inc. or Tesla, Inc.?

APO earns 4.2% ROIC versus TSLA's 3.2%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.