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

Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T (EL) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): 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%. MS is undervalued at $210, with an intrinsic value of $269 and a margin of safety of 22%. Of the two, EL has the wider margin of safety.

EL
Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T
$83.90
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$210.42

Rewards

EL
  • ★Gross margin of 74.7% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
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

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.
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 →
EL
MS
Valuation
$1.81B
Free Cash Flow
N/A
N/A
FCF Yield
N/A
N/A
Trailing P/E
17.01
26.38
Forward P/E
15.45
Quality & Moat
13.16%
ROIC
3.68%
-5.95%
ROE
14.08%
74.65%
Gross Margin
87.64%
2.05
PEG Ratio
1.99
Balance Sheet Safety
1.55
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
2.63
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
1.67%
Dividend Yield
2.19%
EL: 1Ties: 2MS: 5
ELMS

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.

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 →
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
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 →
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
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 →
EL

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

-18.4%
Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

Market roughly matching historical growth — reasonable.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

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.
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 →
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.
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 →
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.
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 →
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
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 →
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
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 →
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.
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 →
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)
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 EL Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: EL vs MS

Is Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T or Morgan Stanley 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 MS's 21.9% margin of safety (intrinsic $269 vs. $210).

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

MS scores 80/100 (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 Morgan Stanley in financial distress?▼

MS's Altman Z-Score of 0.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. EL scores 1.8 (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, Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T or Morgan Stanley?▼

EL earns 13.2% 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, Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (T's or Morgan Stanley's?▼

MS's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to EL's 35/100 (Unsafe). MS has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.