Compare StocksCRM vs ESS

Salesforce, Inc. (CRM) vs Essex Property Trust, Inc. (ESS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, CRM is undervalued at $184, with a DCF intrinsic value of $222981480055 and a margin of safety of 100%. ESS is overvalued at $284, with an intrinsic value of $207 and a margin of safety of -37%. Of the two, CRM has the wider margin of safety.

CRM
Salesforce, Inc.
$184.02
VS
ESS
Essex Property Trust, Inc.
$284.14

Rewards

CRM
  • Gross margin of 77.6% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 31.6% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $5.53 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
ESS
  • Gross margin of 68.8% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.

Risks

CRM
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.81 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
ESS
  • FCF yield of 5.3% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • Trailing P/E of 44.3x is 44% above the historical average of 30.7x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
  • PEG ratio of 7.02 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
CRM
ESS
Valuation
$16.55B
Free Cash Flow
$1.04B
N/A
FCF Yield
5.33%
21.32
Trailing P/E
44.26
11.86
Forward P/E
45.97
Quality & Moat
9.61%
ROIC
4.34%
16.91%
ROE
7.71%
77.64%
Gross Margin
68.77%
0.76
PEG Ratio
7.02
Balance Sheet Safety
0.90
Net Debt / Equity
1.21
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
2.38
Net Debt / EBITDA
5.43
0.96%
Dividend Yield
3.65%
CRM: 9Ties: 1ESS: 1
CRMESS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
CRM

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.

ESS

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 →
CRM
$-0.00
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$14.67B
Δ Market Cap
$-79.12
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
ESS
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-44.5M
Δ Market Cap
+$3.17B
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 →
CRM
100.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 100.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $184.02
Fair Value: $222981480055.14
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
ESS
37.0% Overvalued
Price is 37.0% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $284.14
Fair Value: $207.45
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
CRM

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $184?

-21.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies -30.0%

The market implies -21.2% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding -30.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

ESS

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $284?

+9.7%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +10.8%

The market implies +9.7% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +10.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
CRM
58/100
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.
ESS
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 5 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
CRM
-2.73
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.
ESS
-2.47
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 →
CRM
Insiders 3.0%Institutions 93.8%Retail & Other 3.2%
No. of Institutional Holders3,568
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.
ESS
Insiders 0.7%Institutions 101.2%
No. of Institutional Holders954
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 →
CRM
0
Buys (3M)
4
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $26.52M
ALBER LAURA
Director
$500,266
@ $194.58 · 2026-03-19
KIRK DAVID BLAIR
Director
$500,178
@ $194.62 · 2026-03-18
KIRK DAVID BLAIR
Director
$500,722
@ $258.64 · 2025-12-17
MORFIT G MASON
Director and Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$25.02M
@ $260.58 · 2025-12-05
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
ESS
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 →
CRM
0
Sells (3M)
15
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $40.30M
KROES NEELIE
Director
$929,276
@ $238.70 · 2026-01-14
HARRIS G PARKER
Officer and Director
$31.61M
@ $234.70 · 2025-12-02
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$575,140
@ $255.62 · 2025-10-23
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$590,102
@ $262.27 · 2025-10-21
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$567,631
@ $252.28 · 2025-10-20
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$550,430
@ $244.64 · 2025-10-17
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$558,810
@ $248.36 · 2025-10-16
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$536,322
@ $238.37 · 2025-10-15
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$548,796
@ $243.91 · 2025-10-14
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$1.10M
@ $244.75 · 2025-10-13
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$547,344
@ $243.26 · 2025-10-09
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$539,533
@ $239.79 · 2025-10-08
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$555,001
@ $246.67 · 2025-09-23
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$552,798
@ $245.69 · 2025-09-19
BENIOFF MARC RUSSELL
Chief Executive Officer
$545,384
@ $242.39 · 2025-09-15
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
ESS
1
Sells (3M)
1
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $167,670
KASARIS MARY
Director
$167,670
@ $279.45 · 2026-05-27
KASARIS MARY
Director
$842,240
@ $300.80 · 2025-03-11
KLEIMAN ANGELA L
Chief Executive Officer
$1.68M
@ $315.00 · 2025-03-04
GUERICKE KEITH R
Director
$2.30M
@ $315.00 · 2025-03-03
MORRISON ANNE
General Counsel
$809,325
@ $314.79 · 2025-03-03
PAK BARBARA
Chief Financial Officer
$1.99M
@ $314.79 · 2025-03-03
JOHNSON AMAL M
Director
$2.31M
@ $316.31 · 2024-09-17
KLEIMAN ANGELA L
Chief Executive Officer
$2.55M
@ $315.10 · 2024-09-16
MORRISON ANNE
General Counsel
$809,325
@ $314.79 · 2024-09-16
JOHNSON AMAL M
Director
$735,900
@ $300.00 · 2024-08-30
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 →
CRM
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.
ESS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(53/100)

"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 →
CRM
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)
ESS
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 (53)
View CRM Full AnalysisView ESS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: CRM vs ESS

Is Salesforce, Inc. or Essex Property Trust, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, CRM trades at a 100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $222981480055 vs. price $184), compared to ESS's -37.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $207 vs. $284).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Salesforce, Inc. or Essex Property Trust, Inc.?

ESS scores 63/100 (Narrow moat), while CRM scores 58/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Salesforce, Inc. in financial distress?

CRM's Altman Z-Score of 0.8 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. ESS scores 1.5 (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, Salesforce, Inc. or Essex Property Trust, Inc.?

CRM earns 9.6% ROIC versus ESS's 4.3%. 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, Salesforce, Inc.'s or Essex Property Trust, Inc.'s?

CRM's dividend earns a safety score of 88/100 (Very Safe), compared to ESS's 49/100 (Borderline). CRM has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years.

CRM vs ESS: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io