Compare StocksES vs MS

Eversource Energy (ES) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, ES is overvalued at $70, with a DCF intrinsic value of $8 and a margin of safety of -819%. MS is undervalued at $223, with an intrinsic value of $298 and a margin of safety of 25%. Of the two, MS has the wider margin of safety.

ES
Eversource Energy
$69.59
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$223.17

Rewards

ES
  • Trailing P/E of 14.9x is 26% below the historical average of 20.3x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
MS
  • Gross margin of 87.4% 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

ES
  • FCF yield of 2.2% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • PEG ratio of 2.95 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • High leverage (1.80x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
MS
  • Trailing P/E of 20.2x is 26% above the historical average of 16.1x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
  • PEG ratio of 2.66 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
ES
MS
Valuation
$587.29M
Free Cash Flow
N/A
2.24%
FCF Yield
N/A
14.90
Trailing P/E
20.21
14.05
Forward P/E
17.56
Quality & Moat
5.82%
ROIC
3.38%
10.91%
ROE
16.39%
53.49%
Gross Margin
87.39%
2.95
PEG Ratio
2.66
Balance Sheet Safety
1.80
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
6.14
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
4.51%
Dividend Yield
1.81%
ES: 4Ties: 1MS: 4
ESMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
ES

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 →
ES
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-974.3M
Δ Market Cap
$-3.94B
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 →
ES
818.8% Overvalued
Price is 818.8% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $69.59
Fair Value: $7.57
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
MS
25.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 25.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $223.17
Fair Value: $297.53
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
ES

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $70?

+14.6%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +29.3%

The market implies +14.6% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +29.3%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
ES
40/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with margin stability as the key competitive advantage. Improving reinvestment efficiency 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 →
ES
-2.62
Unlikely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone
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 →
ES
Insiders 0.2%Institutions 87.1%Retail & Other 12.8%
No. of Institutional Holders1,463
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 24.3%Institutions 62.8%Retail & Other 12.9%
No. of Institutional Holders3,208
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 →
ES
1
Buys (3M)
2
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $299,603
MUDGE WARREN ROBERT
Trustee
$49,864
@ $66.49 · 2026-05-08
KEANE LORETTA D.
Trustee
$249,739
@ $66.07 · 2025-08-22
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 →
ES
1
Sells (3M)
9
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $2.65M
BUTLER GREGORY B
General Counsel
$489,160
@ $69.88 · 2026-06-04
CONNER PENELOPE M
Officer
$105,000
@ $75.00 · 2026-03-04
CLEVELAND COTTON MATHER
Trustee
$193,239
@ $74.87 · 2026-02-24
MOREIRA JOHN M.
Chief Financial Officer
$576,420
@ $73.90 · 2026-02-19
FORRY LINDA DORCENA
Trustee
$188,559
@ $73.06 · 2026-02-18
WILLIAMS FREDERICA M
Trustee
$189,239
@ $73.32 · 2026-02-17
BUTLER GREGORY B
General Counsel
$365,400
@ $73.08 · 2025-11-12
HUNT JAMES W III
Officer
$300,489
@ $72.78 · 2025-11-07
CONNER PENELOPE M
Officer
$238,212
@ $64.38 · 2025-08-29
CONNER PENELOPE M
Officer
$166,400
@ $64.00 · 2025-05-20
BUTLER GREGORY B
General Counsel
$752,148
@ $62.68 · 2025-02-28
CLEVELAND COTTON MATHER
Trustee
$492,062
@ $63.50 · 2025-02-26
CONNER PENELOPE M
Officer
$63,630
@ $63.63 · 2025-02-26
BUTH JAY S
Officer
$61,735
@ $62.99 · 2025-02-21
FORRY LINDA DORCENA
Trustee
$63,050
@ $63.05 · 2025-02-20
WILLIAMS FREDERICA M
Trustee
$192,508
@ $62.26 · 2025-02-19
FORRY LINDA DORCENA
Trustee
$127,110
@ $60.76 · 2025-02-18
CONNER PENELOPE M
Officer
$33,452
@ $66.90 · 2024-08-30
CONNER PENELOPE M
Officer
$53,382
@ $65.50 · 2024-08-13
CONNER PENELOPE M
Officer
$32,468
@ $64.94 · 2024-08-09
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
MS
4
Sells (3M)
16
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $70.42M
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
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
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$5.57M
@ $183.62 · 2026-01-20
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$3.97M
@ $184.00 · 2026-01-20
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 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
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.09M
@ $141.13 · 2025-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.69M
@ $141.12 · 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
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 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
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 2025-01-21
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$368,375
@ $105.25 · 2024-07-26
AKRAM RAJA
Officer
$797,764
@ $106.37 · 2024-07-18
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$106,621
@ $106.62 · 2024-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.26M
@ $106.54 · 2024-07-17
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 →
ES
FearGreed
😐Neutral(56/100)

"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
😏Greed(70/100)

"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 →
ES
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 (56)
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: Greed (70)
View ES Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: ES vs MS

Is Eversource Energy or Morgan Stanley more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MS trades at a 25.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $298 vs. price $223), compared to ES's -818.8% margin of safety (intrinsic $8 vs. $70).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Eversource Energy or Morgan Stanley?

MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while ES scores 40/100 (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. ES scores 0.7 (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, Eversource Energy or Morgan Stanley?

ES earns 5.8% ROIC versus MS's 3.4%. 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, Eversource Energy's or Morgan Stanley's?

MS's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to ES's 69/100 (Safe). MS has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

ES vs MS: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io