Compare StocksEG vs MS

Everest Group, Ltd. (EG) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, EG is undervalued at $374, with a DCF intrinsic value of $2520 and a margin of safety of 85%. MS is undervalued at $210, with an intrinsic value of $269 and a margin of safety of 22%. Of the two, EG has the wider margin of safety.

EG
Everest Group, Ltd.
$374.15
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$210.42

Rewards

EG
  • Everest Group, Ltd. scores 75/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • FCF yield of 21.2% is historically attractive — the business generates significant cash relative to its price.
  • Trailing P/E of 7.9x is 34% below the historical average of 12.0x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
MS
  • Gross margin of 87.6% 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

EG
  • Gross margin of 15.3% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.82 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • Free cash flow has declined at a 6.0% CAGR over the past 4 years — a concerning trend.
MS
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • Insiders have sold $5.4M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
EG
MS
Valuation
$3.07B
Free Cash Flow
N/A
21.19%
FCF Yield
N/A
7.91
Trailing P/E
17.01
6.23
Forward P/E
15.45
Quality & Moat
13.33%
ROIC
3.68%
12.57%
ROE
14.08%
15.28%
Gross Margin
87.64%
0.97
PEG Ratio
1.99
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
2.14%
Dividend Yield
2.19%
EG: 4Ties: 2MS: 3
EGMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
EG

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 →
EG
$0.19
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Value Destroyer
Σ Retained
$4.52B
Δ Market Cap
+$858.9M
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 →
EG
85.2% Margin of Safety
Price is 85.2% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $374.15
Fair Value: $2520.18
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
MS
21.9% Margin of Safety
Price is 21.9% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $210.42
Fair Value: $269.50
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
EG

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $374?

-13.1%
Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

Market below historical growth — potential opportunity.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
EG
75/100
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 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 →
EG
-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.
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 →
EG
Insiders 0.8%Institutions 104.3%
No. of Institutional Holders995
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 63.1%Retail & Other 12.5%
No. of Institutional Holders3,329
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 →
EG
0
Buys (3M)
2
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $4.45M
GALTNEY WILLIAM F JR
Director
$3.50M
@ $307.38 · 2025-10-29
LEVINE ALLAN
Director
$948,848
@ $306.08 · 2025-10-29
WILLIAMSON JAMES ALLAN
Chief Executive Officer
$337,970
@ $337.97 · 2025-06-11
GALTNEY WILLIAM F JR
Director
$1.00M
@ $348.64 · 2024-11-04
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
MS
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $5,630
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 →
EG
1
Sells (3M)
1
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $272,676
KEEN JASON WARWICK
Officer
$272,676
@ $351.84 · 2026-05-07
LOSQUADRO GERALDINE M
Director
$540,945
@ $360.63 · 2025-03-18
VAN BEVEREN GAIL
Officer
$290,849
@ $350.42 · 2025-03-14
WILLIAMSON JAMES ALLAN
Chief Operating Officer
$74,000
@ $370.00 · 2024-11-14
KARMILOWICZ MICHAEL
Officer
$93,741
@ $348.48 · 2024-11-04
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
MS
2
Sells (3M)
14
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $64.71M
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
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$9.74M
@ $188.59 · 2026-04-16
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$3.04M
@ $188.22 · 2026-04-16
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$6.02M
@ $182.61 · 2026-01-30
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 2026-01-20
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$5.57M
@ $183.62 · 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
YESHAYA SHARON
Chief Financial Officer
$2.94M
@ $185.77 · 2026-01-20
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$1.55M
@ $182.08 · 2026-01-20
PICK EDWARD N.
Chief Executive Officer
$16.43M
@ $164.34 · 2025-10-31
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.53M
@ $140.62 · 2025-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.69M
@ $141.12 · 2025-07-17
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$2.81M
@ $140.30 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.09M
@ $141.13 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$3.70M
@ $127.37 · 2025-05-12
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.80M
@ $120.00 · 2025-05-02
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$95,459
@ $119.32 · 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
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 2025-01-21
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 2025-01-21
AKRAM RAJA
Chief Financial Officer
$2.38M
@ $136.01 · 2025-01-21
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$5.00M
@ $136.61 · 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 →
EG
FearGreed
😐Neutral(57/100)

"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(57/100)

"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 →
EG
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 (57)
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 (57)
View EG Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: EG vs MS

Is Everest Group, Ltd. or Morgan Stanley more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, EG trades at a 85.2% margin of safety (intrinsic value $2520 vs. price $374), compared to MS's 21.9% margin of safety (intrinsic $269 vs. $210).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Everest Group, Ltd. or Morgan Stanley?

MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while EG scores 75/100 (Wide 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. EG scores 0.8 (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, Everest Group, Ltd. or Morgan Stanley?

EG earns 13.3% ROIC versus MS's 3.7%. 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, Everest Group, Ltd.'s or Morgan Stanley's?

EG's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to MS's 79/100 (Safe). EG has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.