Compare StocksFANG vs QCOM

Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) vs QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, FANG is overvalued at $184, with a DCF intrinsic value of $128 and a margin of safety of -44%. QCOM is overvalued at $226, with an intrinsic value of $128 and a margin of safety of -76%. Of the two, FANG has the wider margin of safety.

FANG
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
$183.50
VS
QCOM
QUALCOMM Incorporated
$226.11

Rewards

FANG
  • Gross margin of 72.2% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
QCOM
  • QUALCOMM Incorporated has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • QUALCOMM Incorporated scores 73/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with reinvestment efficiency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 23.3% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.

Risks

FANG
  • ROIC has declined by 16.4 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
  • Diamondback Energy, Inc. scores only 14/100 on the Economic Moat Score, suggesting limited durable competitive advantages.
  • Share count has increased by 58% over the past 4 years, diluting existing shareholders.
QCOM
  • FCF yield of 5.4% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • 15 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
FANG
QCOM
Valuation
$1.40B
Free Cash Flow
$12.82B
2.71%
FCF Yield
5.38%
187.24
Trailing P/E
24.34
10.42
Forward P/E
21.20
Quality & Moat
1.17%
ROIC
18.22%
0.47%
ROE
36.08%
72.25%
Gross Margin
54.80%
56.78
PEG Ratio
0.91
Balance Sheet Safety
0.32
Net Debt / Equity
0.20
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
1.35
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.42
2.34%
Dividend Yield
1.72%
FANG: 3Ties: 1QCOM: 8
FANGQCOM

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
FANG

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.

QCOM

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 →
FANG
$4.58
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$3.97B
Δ Market Cap
+$18.18B
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
QCOM
$5.06
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$11.96B
Δ Market Cap
+$60.46B
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 →
FANG
339.3% Overvalued
Price is 339.3% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $183.50
Fair Value: $41.77
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
QCOM
178.3% Overvalued
Price is 178.3% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $226.11
Fair Value: $81.25
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
FANG

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $184?

+16.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +19.3%

The market implies +16.9% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +19.3%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

QCOM

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $226?

+17.5%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +7.0%

The market implies +17.5% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +7.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
FANG
14/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable competitive advantage detected. The business shows limited evidence of pricing power, consistent returns, or capital efficiency.

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.
QCOM
73/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by reinvestment efficiency. Revenue Predictability 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 →
FANG
-2.99
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.
QCOM
-3.16
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 →
FANG
Insiders 27.0%Institutions 70.3%Retail & Other 2.7%
No. of Institutional Holders1,591
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.
QCOM
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 84.8%Retail & Other 15.1%
No. of Institutional Holders3,615
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 →
FANG
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
TSURU FRANK D
Director
$313,020
@ $156.51 · 2025-02-28
WEST STEVEN E
Director
$975,960
@ $162.66 · 2024-12-16
REEVES ROBERT K
Director
$509,760
@ $180.00 · 2024-11-08
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
QCOM
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 →
FANG
12
Sells (3M)
32
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $5.04B
PLAUMANN MARK LAWRENCE
Director
$98,250
@ $196.50 · 2026-06-09
SGF FANG HOLDINGS,LP
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$2.04B
@ $204.25 · 2026-06-04
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$1.02M
@ $205.00 · 2026-06-04
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$1.05M
@ $210.00 · 2026-06-03
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
Chief Executive Officer
$3.13M
@ $208.33 · 2026-06-03
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$1.41M
@ $200.90 · 2026-06-02
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$1.00M
@ $200.54 · 2026-06-01
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$1.03M
@ $207.00 · 2026-05-19
THOMPSON JERE W III
Chief Financial Officer
$203,160
@ $203.16 · 2026-05-15
BARKMANN ALBERT
Officer
$612,112
@ $204.04 · 2026-05-15
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$1.00M
@ $200.00 · 2026-05-14
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$1.00M
@ $200.10 · 2026-05-13
WESSON DANIEL N.
Chief Operating Officer
$959,776
@ $191.96 · 2026-03-20
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$965,000
@ $193.00 · 2026-03-20
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$781,293
@ $190.51 · 2026-03-18
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$950,000
@ $190.00 · 2026-03-18
WEST STEVEN E
Director
$1.13M
@ $188.35 · 2026-03-18
THOMPSON JERE W III
Chief Financial Officer
$136,851
@ $182.47 · 2026-03-16
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$3.76M
@ $180.00 · 2026-03-13
BARKMANN ALBERT
Officer
$731,600
@ $182.90 · 2026-03-13
SGF FANG HOLDINGS,LP
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$2.15B
@ $170.19 · 2026-03-12
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$1.01M
@ $183.07 · 2026-03-09
WESSON DANIEL N.
Chief Operating Officer
$3.62M
@ $181.11 · 2026-03-06
THOMPSON JERE W III
Chief Financial Officer
$136,260
@ $181.68 · 2026-03-06
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
Chief Executive Officer
$1.81M
@ $180.84 · 2026-03-06
SGF FANG HOLDINGS,LP
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$176.71M
@ $176.71 · 2026-03-04
SGF FANG HOLDINGS,LP
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$331.87M
@ $165.94 · 2026-02-04
SGF FANG HOLDINGS,LP
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$305.18M
@ $152.59 · 2025-11-28
WESSON DANIEL N.
Chief Operating Officer
$596,948
@ $149.24 · 2025-11-26
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$518,630
@ $148.18 · 2025-11-14
THOMPSON JERE W III
Chief Financial Officer
$147,730
@ $147.73 · 2025-11-11
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
Chief Executive Officer
$1.41M
@ $140.61 · 2025-11-06
THOMPSON JERE W III
Chief Financial Officer
$212,275
@ $141.52 · 2025-06-09
WESSON DANIEL N.
Officer
$710,306
@ $142.06 · 2025-06-03
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
President
$1.43M
@ $142.69 · 2025-05-12
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
President
$653,928
@ $163.48 · 2024-12-13
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$1.00M
@ $200.00 · 2024-08-09
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
President
$9.91M
@ $198.15 · 2024-08-08
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
QCOM
3
Sells (3M)
15
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $12.65M
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$493,380
@ $197.35 · 2026-06-11
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$529,741
@ $211.90 · 2026-05-12
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$325,854
@ $130.34 · 2026-04-13
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$330,815
@ $132.33 · 2026-03-12
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$458,799
@ $137.65 · 2026-02-06
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$577,620
@ $173.30 · 2026-01-02
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$2.20M
@ $175.29 · 2025-12-19
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$2.83M
@ $178.01 · 2025-12-16
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$1.28M
@ $178.03 · 2025-12-16
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$567,702
@ $170.33 · 2025-11-07
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$1.38M
@ $166.06 · 2025-10-20
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$522,808
@ $156.86 · 2025-09-02
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$122,463
@ $154.82 · 2025-08-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$493,610
@ $148.10 · 2025-08-04
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$537,560
@ $161.28 · 2025-07-02
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$486,965
@ $146.10 · 2025-06-02
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$120,808
@ $153.70 · 2025-05-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$465,846
@ $139.77 · 2025-05-05
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$91,442
@ $141.11 · 2025-04-09
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$119,900
@ $132.63 · 2025-04-08
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$235,262
@ $132.10 · 2025-04-04
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$523,292
@ $156.82 · 2025-03-03
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$130,074
@ $174.83 · 2025-02-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$509,397
@ $169.80 · 2025-02-12
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$3.28M
@ $169.83 · 2025-02-10
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$463,851
@ $154.62 · 2025-01-02
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$409,056
@ $158.12 · 2024-12-16
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$1.67M
@ $160.59 · 2024-12-10
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$1.24M
@ $160.59 · 2024-12-10
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$484,617
@ $161.54 · 2024-12-05
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$202,120
@ $155.00 · 2024-11-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$491,349
@ $163.78 · 2024-11-14
THOMPSON JAMES H.
Chief Technology Officer
$1.38M
@ $172.09 · 2024-11-08
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$313,779
@ $165.06 · 2024-11-04
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$539,157
@ $166.15 · 2024-10-02
THOMPSON JAMES H.
Chief Technology Officer
$1.36M
@ $169.80 · 2024-10-01
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 →
FANG
FearGreed
😐Neutral(49/100)

"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.
QCOM
FearGreed
😐Neutral(50/100)

"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 →
FANG
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 (49)
QCOM
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 (50)
View FANG Full AnalysisView QCOM Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: FANG vs QCOM

Is Diamondback Energy, Inc. or QUALCOMM Incorporated more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, FANG trades at a -43.9% margin of safety (intrinsic value $128 vs. price $184), compared to QCOM's -76.1% margin of safety (intrinsic $128 vs. $226).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Diamondback Energy, Inc. or QUALCOMM Incorporated?

QCOM scores 73/100 (Wide moat), while FANG scores 14/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Diamondback Energy, Inc. in financial distress?

FANG's Altman Z-Score of 1.4 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. QCOM scores 6.5 (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 company has better free cash flow, Diamondback Energy, Inc. or QUALCOMM Incorporated?

QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM) generates a 5.4% free cash flow yield, compared to Diamondback Energy, Inc.'s 2.7%. A higher FCF yield means the business converts more of its market value into cash that can be returned to shareholders or reinvested.

Which stock has higher return on invested capital, Diamondback Energy, Inc. or QUALCOMM Incorporated?

QCOM earns 18.2% ROIC versus FANG's 1.2%. 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, Diamondback Energy, Inc.'s or QUALCOMM Incorporated's?

QCOM's dividend earns a safety score of 84/100 (Very Safe), compared to FANG's 60/100 (Safe). QCOM has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.