SafetyMargin.ioSafetyMargin.io
BlogWatchlistCompare
Compare Stocks › EL vs MA

Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T (EL) vs Mastercard Incorporated (MA): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, EL is undervalued at $84, with a DCF intrinsic value of $131122503938 and a margin of safety of 100%. MA is fairly valued at $573, with an intrinsic value of $558 and a margin of safety of -3%. Of the two, EL has the wider margin of safety.

EL
Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T
$83.90
VS
MA
Mastercard Incorporated
$573.10

Rewards

EL
  • ★Gross margin of 74.7% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
MA
  • ★Mastercard Incorporated has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • ★Gross margin of 100.0% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Mastercard Incorporated scores 99/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.

Risks

EL
  • ⚠ROIC has declined by 15.4 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
  • ⚠PEG ratio of 2.05 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • ⚠High leverage (1.55x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
MA
  • ⚠High leverage (2.33x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • ⚠5 insider sales totaling $22.1M with no purchases in the past 3 months — insiders are reducing their exposure.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
EL
MA
Valuation
$1.81B
Free Cash Flow
$16.96B
N/A
FCF Yield
3.38%
N/A
Trailing P/E
31.54
26.38
Forward P/E
24.96
Quality & Moat
13.16%
ROIC
55.99%
-5.95%
ROE
241.20%
74.65%
Gross Margin
100.00%
2.05
PEG Ratio
1.76
Balance Sheet Safety
1.55
Net Debt / Equity
2.33
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
2.63
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.59
1.67%
Dividend Yield
0.61%
EL: 2Ties: 1MA: 7
ELMA

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
EL

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.

MA

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 →
EL
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-2.23B
Δ Market Cap
$-143.39
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
MA
$5.62
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$31.68B
Δ Market Cap
+$177.96B
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 →
EL
100.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 100.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $83.90
Fair Value: $131122503937.78
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
MA
2.7% Overvalued
Price is 2.7% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $573.10
Fair Value: $557.89
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
EL

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $84?

-18.4%
Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

Market roughly matching historical growth — reasonable.

MA

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $573?

+15.1%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +13.4%

The market implies +15.1% Owner Earnings growth, roughly in line with history — reasonably priced.

Standard FCF implies +13.4%, reflecting ongoing growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
EL
36/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable moat detected, though revenue predictability shows some competitive positioning. The business lacks consistent evidence of sustainable advantages.

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.
MA
99/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. ROIC Consistency is the standout factor.

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 →
EL
-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.
MA
-2.53
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 →
EL
Insiders 0.4%Institutions 97.1%Retail & Other 2.5%
No. of Institutional Holders1,300
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.
MA
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 91.5%Retail & Other 8.3%
No. of Institutional Holders4,764
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 →
EL
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
FRIBOURG PAUL J
Director
$2.96M
@ $65.00 · 2025-02-07
FRIBOURG PAUL J
Director
$5.72M
@ $65.80 · 2025-02-06
SHRIVASTAVA AKHIL
Chief Financial Officer
$46,053
@ $65.79 · 2025-02-05
FRIBOURG PAUL J
Director
$5.02M
@ $64.48 · 2024-11-19
FRIBOURG PAUL J
Director
$9.86M
@ $64.46 · 2024-11-18
FRIBOURG PAUL J
Director
$10.05M
@ $63.98 · 2024-11-14
SHRIVASTAVA AKHIL
Chief Financial Officer
$65,000
@ $65.00 · 2024-11-14
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
MA
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 →
EL
0
Sells (3M)
10
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $1.02B
LA LANDE RASHIDA K
General Counsel
$151,498
@ $94.45 · 2025-11-26
LAUDER JANE A
Director and Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$1.68M
@ $94.38 · 2025-11-26
WEBSTER MERIDITH P
Officer
$476,971
@ $87.84 · 2025-11-18
STERNLICHT BARRY S
Director
$364,749
@ $91.83 · 2025-11-11
LAL 2015 ELF TRUST
Trustee
$508.60M
@ $89.70 · 2025-11-06
EVELYN H. LAUDER 2012 MARITAL TRUST TWO
Trustee
$255.22M
@ $89.70 · 2025-11-06
LEONARD A LAUDER 2013 REVOCABLE TRUST
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$249.91M
@ $89.70 · 2025-11-06
FORESTER LYNN
Director
$339,288
@ $91.65 · 2025-08-29
LA LANDE RASHIDA K
General Counsel
$589,594
@ $91.88 · 2025-08-28
LAUDER JANE A
Director and Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$1.39M
@ $88.23 · 2025-08-21
FREDA FABRIZIO
Chief Executive Officer
$743,259
@ $67.76 · 2024-11-01
FORESTER LYNN
Director
$364,143
@ $93.61 · 2024-08-23
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
MA
5
Sells (3M)
10
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $53.72M
MCLAUGHLIN EDWARD GRUNDE
Officer
$10.59M
@ $534.87 · 2026-07-15
ARKELL SANDRA A
Officer
$185,760
@ $540.00 · 2026-07-15
ARKELL SANDRA A
Officer
$216,000
@ $540.00 · 2026-07-07
SESHADRI RAJEEV
Officer
$3.58M
@ $526.37 · 2026-07-02
MCLAUGHLIN EDWARD GRUNDE
Officer
$7.49M
@ $525.19 · 2026-07-01
LING HAI
Officer
$4.48M
@ $499.20 · 2026-02-24
SACHIN J. MEHRA
Chief Financial Officer
$10.20M
@ $591.00 · 2025-09-02
LING HAI
Officer
$2.69M
@ $600.00 · 2025-08-22
SACHIN J. MEHRA
Chief Financial Officer
$10.46M
@ $586.89 · 2025-08-19
SACHIN J. MEHRA
Chief Financial Officer
$3.83M
@ $566.46 · 2025-08-05
GENACHOWSKI JULIUS
Director
$178,049
@ $570.67 · 2025-07-07
KIRKPATRICK LINDA PISTECCHIA
Officer
$536,480
@ $560.00 · 2025-06-30
SESHADRI RAJEEV
Officer
$601,447
@ $546.77 · 2025-06-27
GENACHOWSKI JULIUS
Director
$173,910
@ $561.00 · 2025-06-24
KIRKPATRICK LINDA PISTECCHIA
Officer
$536,480
@ $560.00 · 2025-06-24
SESHADRI RAJEEV
Officer
$508,474
@ $535.80 · 2025-06-20
VOSBURG CRAIG
Officer
$5.02M
@ $532.97 · 2025-06-20
SESHADRI RAJEEV
Officer
$1.76M
@ $561.78 · 2025-06-16
KIRKPATRICK LINDA PISTECCHIA
Officer
$549,373
@ $572.86 · 2025-06-13
VOSBURG CRAIG
Officer
$5.55M
@ $588.18 · 2025-06-12
VOSBURG CRAIG
Officer
$8.22M
@ $585.05 · 2025-06-05
ARKELL SANDRA A
Officer
$218,223
@ $577.31 · 2025-05-15
ARKELL SANDRA A
Officer
$257,535
@ $572.30 · 2025-05-12
MIEBACH MICHAEL
Chief Executive Officer
$8.68M
@ $550.16 · 2025-03-26
MCLAUGHLIN EDWARD GRUNDE
Officer
$3.81M
@ $534.68 · 2025-03-19
VOSBURG CRAIG
Officer
$6.12M
@ $556.14 · 2025-03-05
MIEBACH MICHAEL
Chief Executive Officer
$9.78M
@ $553.76 · 2025-03-05
VOSBURG CRAIG
Officer
$6.19M
@ $562.72 · 2025-02-26
MCLAUGHLIN EDWARD GRUNDE
Officer
$6.18M
@ $564.99 · 2025-02-18
MIEBACH MICHAEL
Chief Executive Officer
$10.17M
@ $564.95 · 2025-02-18
VOSBURG CRAIG
Officer
$7.97M
@ $565.00 · 2025-02-18
SACHIN J. MEHRA
Chief Financial Officer
$2.36M
@ $500.44 · 2024-11-01
MADABHUSHI VENKATA RAJAMANNAR
Officer
$2.30M
@ $491.03 · 2024-09-27
MADABHUSHI VENKATA RAJAMANNAR
Officer
$2.29M
@ $489.86 · 2024-09-20
ARKELL SANDRA A
Officer
$550,000
@ $500.00 · 2024-09-17
MADABHUSHI VENKATA RAJAMANNAR
Officer
$2.31M
@ $493.10 · 2024-09-13
ARKELL SANDRA A
Officer
$528,000
@ $480.00 · 2024-08-29
MASTERCARD FOUNDATION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$42.19M
@ $468.80 · 2024-08-22
MASTERCARD FOUNDATION ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$42.03M
@ $467.02 · 2024-08-21
SACHIN J. MEHRA
Chief Financial Officer
$3.16M
@ $470.00 · 2024-08-16
LING HAI
Officer
$1.36M
@ $470.00 · 2024-08-16
SACHIN J. MEHRA
Chief Financial Officer
$6.11M
@ $455.00 · 2024-08-05
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 →
EL
FearGreed
😐Neutral(46/100)

"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.
MA
FearGreed
😏Greed(67/100)

"Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

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 →
EL
⚪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 (46)
MA
⚪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: Greed (67)
View EL Full AnalysisView MA Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: EL vs MA

Is Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T or Mastercard Incorporated more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, EL trades at a 100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $131122503938 vs. price $84), compared to MA's -2.7% margin of safety (intrinsic $558 vs. $573).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T or Mastercard Incorporated?▼

MA scores 99/100 (Wide moat), while EL scores 36/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T in financial distress?▼

EL's Altman Z-Score of 1.8 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. MA scores 10.6 (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 stock has higher return on invested capital, Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T or Mastercard Incorporated?▼

MA earns 56.0% ROIC versus EL's 13.2%. 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, Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T's or Mastercard Incorporated's?▼

MA's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to EL's 35/100 (Unsafe). MA has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.