Compare Stocks › ARES vs TSLA

Ares Management Corporation (ARES) vs Tesla, Inc. (TSLA): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, ARES is overvalued at $128, with a DCF intrinsic value of $72 and a margin of safety of -77%. TSLA is overvalued at $400, with an intrinsic value of $142 and a margin of safety of -181%. Of the two, ARES has the wider margin of safety.

ARES
Ares Management Corporation
$128.15
VS
TSLA
Tesla, Inc.
$399.81

Rewards

ARES
  • ★Gross margin of 100.0% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Trailing P/E of 59.1x is 23% below the historical average of 77.2x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
  • ★PEG ratio of 0.95 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 -2.9x means the company holds more cash than debt — a net cash position.

Risks

ARES
  • ⚠Share count has increased by 25% over the past 4 years, diluting existing shareholders.
  • ⚠High leverage (1.51x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • ⚠Altman Z-Score of 1.36 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
TSLA
  • ⚠ROIC has declined by 21.5 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
  • ⚠Gross margin of 19.3% 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 →
ARES
TSLA
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$4.97B
N/A
FCF Yield
0.31%
59.06
Trailing P/E
439.35
18.31
Forward P/E
185.50
Quality & Moat
0.48%
ROIC
4.13%
12.88%
ROE
3.84%
100.00%
Gross Margin
19.29%
0.95
PEG Ratio
4.66
Balance Sheet Safety
1.51
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
-2.95
4.21%
Dividend Yield
0.00%
ARES: 6Ties: 1TSLA: 2
ARESTSLA

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
ARES

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 →
ARES
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-2.63B
Δ Market Cap
+$23.73B
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 →
ARES
77.0% Overvalued
Price is 77.0% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $128.15
Fair Value: $72.40
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TSLA
574.9% Overvalued
Price is 574.9% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $399.81
Fair Value: $59.24
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
ARES

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

TSLA

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

+51.0%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +46.8%

The market implies +51.0% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +46.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
ARES
47/100
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 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 →
ARES
-2.63
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 →
ARES
Insiders 11.2%Institutions 94.2%
No. of Institutional Holders1,147
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 17.8%Institutions 43.7%Retail & Other 38.5%
No. of Institutional Holders5,303
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 →
ARES
0
Buys (3M)
2
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $1.33M
OLIAN JUDY D.
Director
$59,726
@ $124.43 · 2026-02-20
BHUTANI ASHISH
Director
$1.27M
@ $126.61 · 2026-02-06
BHUTANI ASHISH
Director
$1.41M
@ $141.33 · 2025-03-11
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
TSLA
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
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 →
ARES
0
Sells (3M)
2
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $828,271
SAGATI AGHILI NASEEM
General Counsel
$529,032
@ $134.92 · 2026-02-04
SAGATI AGHILI NASEEM
General Counsel
$299,239
@ $161.84 · 2026-01-22
SAGATI AGHILI NASEEM
General Counsel
$3.28M
@ $155.97 · 2025-10-01
SAGATI AGHILI NASEEM
General Counsel
$3.75M
@ $178.40 · 2025-09-10
AROUGHETI MICHAEL J
Chief Executive Officer
$16.98M
@ $153.17 · 2025-03-24
DEVEER ROBERT KIPP III
President
$15.00M
@ $190.02 · 2025-02-06
BERRY RYAN
Officer
$2.62M
@ $180.16 · 2024-12-11
DEVEER ROBERT KIPP III
Officer and Director
$53.15M
@ $177.16 · 2024-12-10
BERRY RYAN
Officer
$980,502
@ $180.14 · 2024-12-09
BERRY RYAN
Officer
$292,425
@ $175.00 · 2024-11-11
BERRY RYAN
Officer
$3.21M
@ $175.18 · 2024-11-06
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TSLA
1
Sells (3M)
9
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $60.96M
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$938,419
@ $360.24 · 2026-09-08
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
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$33.67M
@ $299.61 · 2025-03-03
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.78M
@ $296.02 · 2025-03-03
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$27.59M
@ $367.87 · 2025-02-06
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$43.16M
@ $384.04 · 2025-02-03
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.68M
@ $383.11 · 2025-02-03
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$41.16M
@ $411.63 · 2025-01-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.89M
@ $413.56 · 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
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$39.79M
@ $354.06 · 2024-12-02
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.48M
@ $354.43 · 2024-12-02
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$35.34M
@ $314.44 · 2024-11-15
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$34.60M
@ $346.02 · 2024-11-11
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$3.80M
@ $316.91 · 2024-11-11
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 →
ARES
FearGreed
😨Fear(40/100)

"Market is pessimistic — investigate whether fears are temporary or structural"

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(52/100)

"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 →
ARES
⚪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: Fear (40)
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 (52)
View ARES Full AnalysisView TSLA Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: ARES vs TSLA

Is Ares Management Corporation or Tesla, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, ARES trades at a -77.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $72 vs. price $128), compared to TSLA's -181.2% margin of safety (intrinsic $142 vs. $400).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Ares Management Corporation or Tesla, Inc.?▼

ARES scores 47/100 (Narrow 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 Ares Management Corporation in financial distress?▼

ARES's Altman Z-Score of 1.4 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, Ares Management Corporation or Tesla, Inc.?▼

TSLA earns 4.1% ROIC versus ARES's 0.5%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

ARES vs TSLA: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io