Salesforce, Inc. (CRM) vs Tyler Technologies, Inc. (TYL): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?
As of 2026-06-19, CRM is undervalued at $152, with a DCF intrinsic value of $274 and a margin of safety of 45%. TYL is fairly valued at $279, with an intrinsic value of $343 and a margin of safety of 19%. Of the two, CRM has the wider margin of safety.
Rewards
- ★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.
- ★Free cash flow has grown at a 23.3% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
- ★Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.16 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
- ★Trailing P/E of 38.5x is 55% below the historical average of 85.7x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
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 $152?
The market implies +3.6% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.
Standard FCF implies a more demanding -2.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.
What growth rate is the market pricing in at $279?
The market implies +11.3% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.
Standard FCF implies a more demanding +8.1%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.
Economic Moat Score
Learn more →Narrow moat with revenue predictability as the key competitive advantage. Improving roic consistency would strengthen the moat.
Narrow moat with revenue predictability as the key competitive advantage. Improving roic consistency would strengthen the moat.
Forensic Accounting
Learn more →M-Score Trend
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 →"Mr. Market is panicking — potential buying opportunity if fundamentals are strong"
"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: CRM vs TYL
Is Salesforce, Inc. or Tyler Technologies, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?▼
Based on our discounted cash flow model, CRM trades at a 44.5% margin of safety (intrinsic value $274 vs. price $152), compared to TYL's 18.8% margin of safety (intrinsic $343 vs. $279).
Which stock has a wider economic moat, Salesforce, Inc. or Tyler Technologies, Inc.?▼
TYL scores 62/100 (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 2.4 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. TYL scores 7.3 (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 company has better free cash flow, Salesforce, Inc. or Tyler Technologies, Inc.?▼
Salesforce, Inc. (CRM) generates a 13.3% free cash flow yield, compared to Tyler Technologies, Inc.'s 4.7%. 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, Salesforce, Inc. or Tyler Technologies, Inc.?▼
CRM earns 9.6% ROIC versus TYL's 8.9%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.