Compare Stocks › BAC vs CMS

Bank of America Corporation (BAC) vs CMS Energy Corporation (CMS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, BAC is undervalued at $50, with a DCF intrinsic value of $180 and a margin of safety of 72%. CMS is overvalued at $70, with an intrinsic value of $7 and a margin of safety of -907%. Of the two, BAC has the wider margin of safety.

BAC
Bank of America Corporation
$50.01
VS
CMS
CMS Energy Corporation
$70.10

Rewards

BAC
  • ★Bank of America Corporation scores 100/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • ★PEG ratio of 0.91 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.
CMS
  • ★Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.38 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

BAC
  • ⚠Gross margin of 0.0% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • ⚠Altman Z-Score of 0.22 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
CMS
  • ⚠CMS Energy Corporation scores only 25/100 on the Economic Moat Score, suggesting limited durable competitive advantages.
  • ⚠PEG ratio of 2.53 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • ⚠High leverage (1.92x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
BAC
CMS
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$-2.07B
N/A
FCF Yield
-9.41%
11.94
Trailing P/E
25.04
9.64
Forward P/E
16.91
Quality & Moat
3.80%
ROIC
6.61%
10.73%
ROE
5.31%
0.00%
Gross Margin
40.76%
0.91
PEG Ratio
2.53
Balance Sheet Safety
N/A
Net Debt / Equity
1.92
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
6.33
2.56%
Dividend Yield
3.25%
BAC: 4Ties: 1CMS: 3
BACCMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
BAC

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.

CMS

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 →
BAC
$2.37
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$55.63B
Δ Market Cap
+$131.83B
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
CMS
$2.73
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$1.09B
Δ Market Cap
+$2.98B
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 →
BAC
72.2% Margin of Safety
Price is 72.2% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $50.01
Fair Value: $180.08
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
CMS
907.2% Overvalued
Price is 907.2% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $70.10
Fair Value: $6.96
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
BAC

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

CMS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

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

Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. Reinvestment Efficiency is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.

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.
CMS
25/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable moat detected, though margin stability 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 →
BAC
-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.
CMS
-2.43
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 →
BAC
Insiders 7.1%Institutions 71.9%Retail & Other 21.0%
No. of Institutional Holders4,517
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.
CMS
Insiders 0.5%Institutions 104.5%
No. of Institutional Holders1,138
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 →
BAC
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
CMS
0
Buys (3M)
2
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $167,889
MADDIPATI SRIKANTH
Officer
$14,491
@ $72.45 · 2026-07-31
LEOPOLD DIANE
Director
$153,398
@ $76.70 · 2026-02-25
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 →
BAC
0
Sells (3M)
5
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $20.17M
MENSAH BERNARD AMPONSAH
Officer
$4.41M
@ $46.94 · 2026-03-12
SCRIVENER THOMAS M
Officer
$2.49M
@ $49.82 · 2026-03-05
BRONSTEIN SHERI B
Officer
$2.99M
@ $49.91 · 2026-03-05
ATHANASIA DEAN C
President
$6.86M
@ $50.21 · 2026-03-03
BORTHWICK ALASTAIR M.
Chief Financial Officer
$3.42M
@ $50.24 · 2026-02-27
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
CMS
0
Sells (3M)
5
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $2.09M
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$222,930
@ $74.31 · 2026-05-26
MCINTOSH SCOTT B.
Officer
$136,859
@ $78.21 · 2026-03-02
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$312,940
@ $78.23 · 2026-02-27
RUSSELL JOHN G.
Director
$1.13M
@ $75.75 · 2026-02-20
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$289,882
@ $72.47 · 2025-11-03
SNYDER LAUREN Y
Officer
$158,199
@ $71.26 · 2025-09-05
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$147,246
@ $73.62 · 2025-08-08
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$161,790
@ $73.61 · 2025-05-06
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$147,540
@ $73.77 · 2025-03-03
WRIGHT LAURA H
Director
$174,609
@ $69.84 · 2025-02-19
MCINTOSH SCOTT B.
Officer
$467,392
@ $69.76 · 2025-02-13
RUSSELL JOHN G.
Director
$1.89M
@ $65.85 · 2024-12-19
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$134,443
@ $67.22 · 2024-12-13
MCINTOSH SCOTT B.
Officer
$64,116
@ $68.50 · 2024-11-21
HOFMEISTER BRANDON J
Officer
$136,345
@ $68.17 · 2024-11-18
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 →
BAC
FearGreed
😨Fear(39/100)

"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.
CMS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(60/100)

"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 →
BAC
⚪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 (39)
CMS
⚪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 (60)
View BAC Full AnalysisView CMS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: BAC vs CMS

Is Bank of America Corporation or CMS Energy Corporation more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, BAC trades at a 72.2% margin of safety (intrinsic value $180 vs. price $50), compared to CMS's -907.2% margin of safety (intrinsic $7 vs. $70).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Bank of America Corporation or CMS Energy Corporation?▼

BAC scores 100/100 (Wide moat), while CMS scores 25/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Bank of America Corporation in financial distress?▼

BAC's Altman Z-Score of 0.2 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. CMS scores 0.9 (Distress 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, Bank of America Corporation or CMS Energy Corporation?▼

CMS earns 6.6% ROIC versus BAC's 3.8%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, Bank of America Corporation's or CMS Energy Corporation's?▼

BAC's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to CMS's 69/100 (Safe). BAC has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

BAC vs CMS: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io