Compare StocksETR vs MS

Entergy Corporation (ETR) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, ETR is overvalued at $108, with a DCF intrinsic value of $65 and a margin of safety of -65%. MS is undervalued at $210, with an intrinsic value of $269 and a margin of safety of 22%. Of the two, MS has the wider margin of safety.

ETR
Entergy Corporation
$107.62
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$210.42

Rewards

ETR
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $3.47 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
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

ETR
  • Entergy Corporation scores only 27/100 on the Economic Moat Score, suggesting limited durable competitive advantages.
  • Trailing P/E of 27.5x is 31% above the historical average of 21.0x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
  • High leverage (1.66x 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 →
ETR
MS
Valuation
$-4.40B
Free Cash Flow
N/A
-8.76%
FCF Yield
N/A
27.52
Trailing P/E
17.01
21.12
Forward P/E
15.45
Quality & Moat
4.90%
ROIC
3.68%
10.25%
ROE
14.08%
47.00%
Gross Margin
87.64%
2.00
PEG Ratio
1.99
Balance Sheet Safety
1.66
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
5.56
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
2.38%
Dividend Yield
2.19%
ETR: 2Ties: 2MS: 5
ETRMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
ETR

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 →
ETR
$8.33
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$2.17B
Δ Market Cap
+$18.05B
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 →
ETR
64.9% Overvalued
Price is 64.9% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $107.62
Fair Value: $65.25
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 →
ETR

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
ETR
27/100
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 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 →
ETR
-2.65
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 →
ETR
Insiders 0.2%Institutions 96.2%Retail & Other 3.6%
No. of Institutional Holders1,701
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 →
ETR
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $96,690
ROPP RALPH LEWIS
Director
$96,690
@ $96.69 · 2025-11-12
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 →
ETR
2
Sells (3M)
13
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $9.84M
COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY
Chief Operating Officer
$575,000
@ $115.00 · 2026-06-25
FISACKERLY HALEY R
Officer
$1.17M
@ $110.00 · 2026-06-03
HUDSON JOHN O. III
Officer
$1.05M
@ $104.79 · 2026-02-23
DINELLI JOHN C
Officer
$558,419
@ $103.95 · 2026-02-20
CHAPMAN JASON
Chief Technology Officer
$1.79M
@ $104.02 · 2026-02-13
BROWN MARCUS V
Officer
$2.25M
@ $105.12 · 2026-02-13
LANDREAUX LAURA R
Officer
$234,150
@ $93.66 · 2025-11-21
MINOR ANASTASIA
Officer
$481,950
@ $96.39 · 2025-11-04
FISACKERLY HALEY R
Officer
$495,624
@ $96.50 · 2025-11-04
CHAPMAN JASON
Officer
$483,050
@ $96.61 · 2025-11-03
ELLIS BRIAN W
Director
$4,133
@ $96.12 · 2025-10-31
CHAPMAN JASON
Chief Technology Officer
$727,426
@ $96.45 · 2025-10-30
MINOR ANASTASIA
Officer
$13,195
@ $91.00 · 2025-08-13
FISACKERLY HALEY R
Officer
$403,902
@ $90.50 · 2025-07-31
COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY
Chief Operating Officer
$1.91M
@ $90.20 · 2025-07-30
COOK-NELSON KIMBERLY
Chief Operating Officer
$660,000
@ $88.00 · 2025-07-22
ELLIS BRIAN W
Director
$53,261
@ $82.32 · 2025-05-30
FONTAN KIMBERLY A.
Chief Financial Officer
$2.29M
@ $81.95 · 2025-05-29
RODRIGUEZ DEANNA D
Officer
$266,101
@ $82.64 · 2025-03-06
FISACKERLY HALEY R
Officer
$1.56M
@ $87.34 · 2025-03-04
NORGEOT PETER STEVENS JR
Chief Operating Officer
$1.68M
@ $86.78 · 2025-02-28
MINOR ANASTASIA
Officer
$1.06M
@ $85.36 · 2025-02-25
CHAPMAN JASON
Officer
$294,645
@ $85.01 · 2025-02-24
MAY PHILLIP R JR
Officer
$3.00M
@ $85.28 · 2025-02-21
VIAMONTES ELIECER
Officer
$1.81M
@ $85.62 · 2025-02-20
BROWN MARCUS V
General Counsel
$13.73M
@ $87.06 · 2025-02-19
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 →
ETR
FearGreed
😐Neutral(51/100)

"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 →
ETR
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 (51)
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 ETR Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: ETR vs MS

Is Entergy Corporation or Morgan Stanley more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MS trades at a 21.9% margin of safety (intrinsic value $269 vs. price $210), compared to ETR's -64.9% margin of safety (intrinsic $65 vs. $108).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Entergy Corporation or Morgan Stanley?

MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while ETR scores 27/100 (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. ETR scores 1.0 (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, Entergy Corporation or Morgan Stanley?

ETR earns 4.9% 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, Entergy Corporation's or Morgan Stanley's?

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