Compare Stocks › DG vs MS

Dollar General Corporation (DG) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, DG is overvalued at $132, with a DCF intrinsic value of $65 and a margin of safety of -103%. MS is undervalued at $184, with an intrinsic value of $314 and a margin of safety of 41%. Of the two, MS has the wider margin of safety.

DG
Dollar General Corporation
$132.30
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$184.30

Rewards

DG
  • ★Free cash flow has grown at a 78.1% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
  • ★FCF yield of 8.2% is historically attractive — the business generates significant cash relative to its price.
MS
  • ★Gross margin of 87.3% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Morgan Stanley scores 80/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • ★Each dollar of retained earnings has created $3.56 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

DG
  • ⚠High leverage (1.53x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • ⚠8 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.
MS
  • ⚠Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • ⚠13 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
DG
MS
Valuation
$2.39B
Free Cash Flow
N/A
8.20%
FCF Yield
N/A
17.18
Trailing P/E
14.62
15.91
Forward P/E
13.50
Quality & Moat
9.37%
ROIC
3.47%
19.69%
ROE
13.84%
31.16%
Gross Margin
87.31%
1.65
PEG Ratio
1.61
Balance Sheet Safety
1.53
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
3.96
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
1.78%
Dividend Yield
2.50%
DG: 2Ties: 2MS: 5
DGMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
DG

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.

MS

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 →
DG
$-0.24
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$2.74B
Δ Market Cap
$-652.0M
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
MS
$6.65
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$20.84B
Δ Market Cap
+$138.59B
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 →
DG
102.5% Overvalued
Price is 102.5% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $132.30
Fair Value: $65.33
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
MS
41.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 41.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $184.30
Fair Value: $313.71
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
DG

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $132?

+12.6%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +6.4%

The market implies +12.6% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +6.4%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
DG
47/100
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.
MS
80/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. Margin Stability 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.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
DG
-2.75
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.
MS
-2.09
Possible 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 →
DG
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 100.7%
No. of Institutional Holders1,573
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.
MS
Insiders 24.4%Institutions 63.5%Retail & Other 12.1%
No. of Institutional Holders3,458
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 →
DG
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
MS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
PETERSON DOUGLAS L
Director
$5,630
@ $156.39 · 2025-10-17
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 →
DG
1
Sells (3M)
8
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $9.00M
REARDON KATHLEEN A
Officer
$732,555
@ $131.33 · 2026-09-03
WHEELER BRYAN D
Officer
$1.32M
@ $135.32 · 2025-12-19
TAYLOR RHONDA M
General Counsel
$1.01M
@ $134.89 · 2025-12-16
WEST RODERICK J
Officer
$304,316
@ $133.35 · 2025-12-16
ELLIOTT ANITA C
Officer
$333,424
@ $132.52 · 2025-12-12
WENKOFF CARMAN R
Chief Technology Officer
$2.53M
@ $132.01 · 2025-12-11
HERRMANN TRACEY N
Officer
$2.21M
@ $126.82 · 2025-12-11
REARDON KATHLEEN A
Officer
$558,028
@ $126.97 · 2025-12-08
TAYLOR EMILY C
Officer
$222,501
@ $113.00 · 2025-06-17
REARDON KATHLEEN A
Officer
$718,229
@ $111.56 · 2025-06-12
TAYLOR EMILY C
Officer
$76,627
@ $94.72 · 2025-04-04
TAYLOR EMILY C
Officer
$367,061
@ $77.44 · 2024-12-13
REARDON KATHLEEN A
Officer
$296,241
@ $82.68 · 2024-12-10
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
MS
0
Sells (3M)
13
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $48.28M
SCHAPIRO MARY L
Director
$212,055
@ $212.06 · 2026-07-28
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$5.21M
@ $215.55 · 2026-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$2.12M
@ $190.75 · 2026-04-20
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$2.78M
@ $189.24 · 2026-04-17
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$3.04M
@ $188.22 · 2026-04-16
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$9.74M
@ $188.59 · 2026-04-16
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$6.02M
@ $182.61 · 2026-01-30
YESHAYA SHARON
Chief Financial Officer
$2.94M
@ $185.77 · 2026-01-20
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$1.55M
@ $182.08 · 2026-01-20
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$3.97M
@ $184.00 · 2026-01-20
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.44M
@ $183.45 · 2026-01-20
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 2026-01-20
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$5.57M
@ $183.62 · 2026-01-20
PICK EDWARD N.
Chief Executive Officer
$16.43M
@ $164.34 · 2025-10-31
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$2.81M
@ $140.30 · 2025-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.69M
@ $141.12 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.09M
@ $141.13 · 2025-07-17
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.53M
@ $140.62 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$3.70M
@ $127.37 · 2025-05-12
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$95,459
@ $119.32 · 2025-05-02
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.80M
@ $120.00 · 2025-05-02
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.12M
@ $111.65 · 2025-04-15
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.15M
@ $138.06 · 2025-01-22
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 2025-01-21
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$5.00M
@ $136.61 · 2025-01-21
AKRAM RAJA
Chief Financial Officer
$2.38M
@ $136.01 · 2025-01-21
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 2025-01-21
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 →
DG
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.
MS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(49/100)

"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 →
DG
⚪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)
MS
⚪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 (49)
View DG Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: DG vs MS

Is Dollar General Corporation or Morgan Stanley more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MS trades at a 41.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $314 vs. price $184), compared to DG's -102.5% margin of safety (intrinsic $65 vs. $132).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Dollar General Corporation or Morgan Stanley?▼

MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while DG scores 47/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Morgan Stanley in financial distress?▼

MS's Altman Z-Score of 0.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. DG 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 stock has higher return on invested capital, Dollar General Corporation or Morgan Stanley?▼

DG earns 9.4% ROIC versus MS's 3.5%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, Dollar General Corporation's or Morgan Stanley's?▼

DG's dividend earns a safety score of 85/100 (Very Safe), compared to MS's 79/100 (Safe). DG has raised its dividend for 0 consecutive years.