Compare StocksF vs GS

Ford Motor Company (F) vs Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) (GS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, F is overvalued at $15, with a DCF intrinsic value of $0 and a margin of safety of -100%. GS is undervalued at $1018, with an intrinsic value of $481431875452 and a margin of safety of 100%. Of the two, GS has the wider margin of safety.

F
Ford Motor Company
$14.68
VS
GS
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)
$1018.38

Rewards

F
    GS
    • Gross margin of 82.1% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
    • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.58 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

    Risks

    F
    • ROIC has declined by 6.4 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
    • Gross margin of 7.1% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
    • PEG ratio of 8.48 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
    GS
    • Altman Z-Score of 0.16 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
    • Insiders have sold $20.4M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.

    Key Valuation Metrics

    Learn more →
    F
    GS
    Valuation
    $-7.94B
    Free Cash Flow
    N/A
    -13.56%
    FCF Yield
    N/A
    N/A
    Trailing P/E
    15.72
    7.74
    Forward P/E
    13.81
    Quality & Moat
    1.40%
    ROIC
    2.46%
    -18.25%
    ROE
    16.95%
    7.12%
    Gross Margin
    82.08%
    8.48
    PEG Ratio
    1.45
    Balance Sheet Safety
    3.95
    Net Debt / Equity
    Net cash
    N/A
    Interest Coverage
    N/A
    18.47
    Net Debt / EBITDA
    N/A
    4.09%
    Dividend Yield
    1.96%
    F: 2Ties: 1GS: 5
    FGS

    Historical Fundamentals

    Learn more →
    F

    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.

    GS

    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 →
    F
    N/A
    Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
    Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
    Σ Retained
    $-9.06B
    Δ Market Cap
    +$5.81B
    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
    GS
    $0.00
    created per $1 retained over 3 years
    Value Destroyer
    Σ Retained
    $26.00B
    Δ Market Cap
    +$535.62
    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 →
    F
    Insufficient Data
    Enter initial FCF to calculate intrinsic value
    Current Price: $14.68
    Fair Value: $0.00
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued
    GS
    100.0% Margin of Safety
    Price is 100.0% below estimated fair value
    Current Price: $1018.38
    Fair Value: $481431875452.18
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued

    Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

    Learn more →
    F

    Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

    GS

    Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

    Economic Moat Score

    Learn more →
    F
    35/100
    No Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    No durable moat detected, though reinvestment efficiency 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.
    GS
    65/100
    Narrow Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    Narrow moat with reinvestment efficiency as the key competitive advantage. Improving margin stability 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 4 years of fundamental data.

    Forensic Accounting

    Learn more →
    F
    -2.49
    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.
    GS
    -2.00
    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 →
    F
    Insiders 0.3%Institutions 67.6%Retail & Other 32.1%
    No. of Institutional Holders2,160
    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.
    GS
    Insiders 0.5%Institutions 74.8%Retail & Other 24.7%
    No. of Institutional Holders3,873
    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 →
    F
    1
    Buys (3M)
    3
    Buys (12M)
    Total value (12M): $2.18M
    THORNTON JOHN L
    Director
    $148,880
    @ $14.05 · 2026-06-23
    FORD WILLIAM CLAY JR
    Officer and Director
    $1.93M
    @ $13.82 · 2026-02-19
    THORNTON JOHN L
    Director
    $99,189
    @ $13.19 · 2025-11-14
    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
    GS
    0
    Buys (3M)
    0
    Buys (12M)
    HESS JOHN B JR.
    Director
    $2.00M
    @ $511.68 · 2025-04-15
    JOHNSON KEVIN RONALD
    Director
    $1.49M
    @ $619.02 · 2025-01-17
    FLAHERTY MARK A
    Director
    $29,545
    @ $360.30 · 2024-09-27
    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 →
    F
    0
    Sells (3M)
    0
    Sells (12M)
    FRICK ANDREW
    Officer
    $675,000
    @ $11.25 · 2025-07-02
    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
    GS
    3
    Sells (3M)
    15
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $78.42M
    LESLIE ERICKA T
    Officer
    $287,951
    @ $1151.80 · 2026-07-15
    COLEMAN DENIS P.
    Chief Financial Officer
    $6.68M
    @ $973.55 · 2026-05-14
    RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
    General Counsel
    $13.42M
    @ $939.07 · 2026-05-06
    RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
    General Counsel
    $634,927
    @ $929.61 · 2026-05-01
    FREDMAN SHEARA J.
    Officer
    $9.57M
    @ $929.17 · 2026-05-01
    SOLOMON DAVID M
    Chief Executive Officer
    $3.23M
    @ $930.70 · 2026-05-01
    GOLTEN ALEXANDER SIMON
    Officer
    $1.04M
    @ $936.18 · 2026-04-23
    GOLTEN ALEXANDER SIMON
    Officer
    $1.02M
    @ $919.19 · 2026-04-17
    COLEMAN DENIS P.
    Chief Financial Officer
    $10.94M
    @ $941.57 · 2026-02-09
    SOLOMON DAVID M
    Chief Executive Officer
    $255,387
    @ $938.92 · 2026-01-29
    HALIO CAREY
    Officer
    $2.64M
    @ $927.17 · 2026-01-27
    RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
    General Counsel
    $8.89M
    @ $927.51 · 2026-01-23
    HALIO CAREY
    Officer
    $1.62M
    @ $920.62 · 2026-01-23
    FREDMAN SHEARA J.
    Officer
    $4.49M
    @ $923.75 · 2026-01-23
    WALDRON JOHN E.
    President
    $13.69M
    @ $750.30 · 2025-08-28
    COLEMAN DENIS P.
    Chief Financial Officer
    $5.41M
    @ $724.40 · 2025-07-25
    ROGERS JOHN F W
    Officer
    $4.31M
    @ $717.39 · 2025-07-23
    SOLOMON DAVID M
    Chief Executive Officer
    $4.71M
    @ $712.31 · 2025-07-23
    SOLOMON DAVID M
    Chief Executive Officer
    $3.04M
    @ $607.17 · 2025-05-14
    SOLOMON DAVID M
    Chief Executive Officer
    $1.50M
    @ $622.15 · 2025-02-26
    GOLTEN ALEXANDER SIMON
    Officer
    $3.31M
    @ $636.25 · 2025-01-28
    HALIO CAREY
    Officer and Treasurer
    $2.32M
    @ $636.74 · 2025-01-24
    HALIO CAREY
    Officer
    $965,120
    @ $624.67 · 2025-01-21
    FREDMAN SHEARA J.
    Officer
    $1.28M
    @ $627.01 · 2025-01-21
    RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
    General Counsel
    $4.76M
    @ $634.69 · 2025-01-21
    SOLOMON DAVID M
    Chief Executive Officer
    $4.00M
    @ $610.91 · 2024-11-29
    VINIAR DAVID A
    Director
    $3.06M
    @ $612.08 · 2024-11-29
    ROGERS JOHN F W
    Officer
    $3.83M
    @ $596.36 · 2024-11-06
    COLEMAN DENIS P.
    Chief Financial Officer
    $7.67M
    @ $593.03 · 2024-11-06
    FREDMAN SHEARA J.
    Officer
    $1.77M
    @ $594.51 · 2024-11-06
    SOLOMON DAVID M
    Chief Executive Officer
    $3.00M
    @ $500.29 · 2024-08-15
    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 →
    F
    FearGreed
    😐Neutral(58/100)

    "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.
    GS
    FearGreed
    😐Neutral(53/100)

    "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 →
    F
    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 (58)
    GS
    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 (53)
    View F Full AnalysisView GS Full Analysis

    Frequently Asked Questions: F vs GS

    Is Ford Motor Company or Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) more undervalued in 2026?

    Based on our discounted cash flow model, GS trades at a 100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $481431875452 vs. price $1018), compared to F's -100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $0 vs. $15).

    Which stock has a wider economic moat, Ford Motor Company or Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)?

    GS scores 65/100 (Narrow moat), while F scores 35/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

    Is Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) in financial distress?

    GS's Altman Z-Score of 0.2 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. F 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, Ford Motor Company or Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)?

    GS earns 2.5% ROIC versus F's 1.4%. 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, Ford Motor Company's or Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)'s?

    GS's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to F's 65/100 (Safe). GS has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.