The Cigna Group (CI) vs Intel Corporation (INTC): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?
As of 2026-11-01, CI is undervalued at $298, with a DCF intrinsic value of $595 and a margin of safety of 50%. INTC is overvalued at $66, with an intrinsic value of $8 and a margin of safety of -697%. Of the two, CI has the wider margin of safety.
Rewards
- ★Share count has been reduced by 12% over the past 4 years through buybacks, increasing each share's claim on earnings.
- ★FCF yield of 10.1% is historically attractive — the business generates significant cash relative to its price.
- ★Trailing P/E of 12.3x is 25% below the historical average of 16.5x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
- ★Net debt/EBITDA of -0.2x means the company holds more cash than debt — a net cash position.
Risks
- ⚠Gross margin of 9.1% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
- ⚠Insiders have sold $6.3M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
- ⚠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.
- ⚠FCF yield of 0.2% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
Key Valuation Metrics
Learn more →Historical Fundamentals
Learn more →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.
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 →> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
> $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 →Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth
Learn more →What growth rate is the market pricing in at $298?
The market implies +2.6% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.
Standard FCF implies a demanding +1.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment.
What growth rate is the market pricing in at $66?
Market pricing in significantly higher growth than history — aggressive.
Economic Moat Score
Learn more →Narrow moat with reinvestment efficiency as the key competitive advantage. Improving margin stability would strengthen the moat.
No durable moat detected, though revenue predictability shows some competitive positioning. The business lacks consistent evidence of sustainable advantages.
Forensic Accounting
Learn more →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.
Ownership Breakdown
Learn more →High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
Insider Buying Activity
Learn more →Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.
Insider Selling Activity
Learn more →Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.
🎭 Mr. Market's Mood
Learn more →"Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"
"Market is pessimistic — investigate whether fears are temporary or structural"
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 →The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
Frequently Asked Questions: CI vs INTC
Is The Cigna Group or Intel Corporation more undervalued in 2026?▼
Based on our discounted cash flow model, CI trades at a 49.9% margin of safety (intrinsic value $595 vs. price $298), compared to INTC's -696.5% margin of safety (intrinsic $8 vs. $66).
Which stock has a wider economic moat, The Cigna Group or Intel Corporation?▼
CI scores 54/100 (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 Intel Corporation in financial distress?▼
INTC's Altman Z-Score of 2.1 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. CI scores 2.6 (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, The Cigna Group or Intel Corporation?▼
The Cigna Group (CI) generates a 10.1% free cash flow yield, compared to Intel Corporation's 0.2%. 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, The Cigna Group or Intel Corporation?▼
CI earns 11.9% ROIC versus INTC's 4.1%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.