Compare Stocks › FANG vs V

Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) vs Visa Inc. (V): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, FANG is overvalued at $212, with a DCF intrinsic value of $134 and a margin of safety of -59%. V is overvalued at $414, with an intrinsic value of $328 and a margin of safety of -26%. Of the two, V has the wider margin of safety.

FANG
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
$212.08
VS
V
Visa Inc.
$413.59

Rewards

FANG
  • ★Gross margin of 72.4% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★FCF yield of 8.5% is historically attractive — the business generates significant cash relative to its price.
V
  • ★Visa Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • ★Gross margin of 97.7% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Visa Inc. scores 99/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.

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.
V
  • ⚠FCF yield of 2.7% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • ⚠5 insider sales totaling $12.5M with no purchases in the past 3 months — insiders are reducing their exposure.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
FANG
V
Valuation
$5.04B
Free Cash Flow
$21.12B
8.48%
FCF Yield
2.73%
40.40
Trailing P/E
33.57
10.09
Forward P/E
24.14
Quality & Moat
10.99%
ROIC
39.72%
3.49%
ROE
63.51%
72.35%
Gross Margin
97.68%
10.36
PEG Ratio
1.87
Balance Sheet Safety
0.28
Net Debt / Equity
0.22
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
1.03
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.25
2.07%
Dividend Yield
0.65%
FANG: 3Ties: 1V: 8
FANGV

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.

V

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
V
$5.46
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$44.47B
Δ Market Cap
+$242.97B
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
345.8% Overvalued
Price is 345.8% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $212.08
Fair Value: $47.58
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
V
26.1% Overvalued
Price is 26.1% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $413.59
Fair Value: $327.99
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 $212?

+18.1%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +3.0%

The market implies +18.1% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +3.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

V

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $414?

+16.8%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +16.1%

The market implies +16.8% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +16.1%, 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.
V
99/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. ROIC Consistency is the standout factor.

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.
V
-2.50
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 23.9%Institutions 73.5%Retail & Other 2.6%
No. of Institutional Holders1,616
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.
V
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 88.7%Retail & Other 11.2%
No. of Institutional Holders6,002
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
V
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
10
Sells (3M)
42
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $6.93B
SGF FANG HOLDINGS,LP
Beneficial Owner of more than 10% of a Class of Security
$1.86B
@ $205.26 · 2026-09-16
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$281,848
@ $212.56 · 2026-09-15
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$1.05M
@ $210.00 · 2026-09-15
STICE TRAVIS D
Director
$15.32M
@ $204.31 · 2026-09-11
PLAUMANN MARK LAWRENCE
Director
$210,577
@ $210.58 · 2026-08-21
WESSON DANIEL N.
Chief Operating Officer
$1.61M
@ $215.21 · 2026-08-20
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
Chief Executive Officer
$2.15M
@ $214.66 · 2026-08-20
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$506,930
@ $202.77 · 2026-08-14
THOMPSON JERE W III
Officer
$102,070
@ $204.14 · 2026-08-14
VANT HOF MATTHEW KAES
Chief Executive Officer
$1.01M
@ $202.46 · 2026-08-11
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
WEST STEVEN E
Director
$1.13M
@ $188.35 · 2026-03-18
ZMIGROSKY MATTHEW PAUL
Officer
$781,293
@ $190.51 · 2026-03-18
DICK TERESA L
Officer
$950,000
@ $190.00 · 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
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
V
5
Sells (3M)
21
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $84.17M
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$687,691
@ $368.34 · 2026-09-09
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.23M
@ $379.65 · 2026-09-01
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$773,378
@ $381.35 · 2026-08-31
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.16M
@ $367.87 · 2026-08-21
TANEJA RAJAT
Officer
$6.65M
@ $371.00 · 2026-08-21
MAHON TULLIER KELLY
Officer
$20.90M
@ $364.97 · 2026-07-30
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$729,720
@ $360.00 · 2026-07-02
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.61M
@ $343.99 · 2026-07-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$7.13M
@ $340.25 · 2026-06-29
SUH CHRIS
Chief Financial Officer
$3.46M
@ $324.81 · 2026-05-12
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$10.70M
@ $340.14 · 2026-04-29
CARNEY LLOYD
Director
$201,253
@ $309.62 · 2026-03-11
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.66M
@ $349.18 · 2026-01-02
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$699,315
@ $345.00 · 2025-12-11
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.57M
@ $340.07 · 2025-12-11
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$2.50M
@ $331.45 · 2025-12-02
TANEJA RAJAT
Officer
$7.84M
@ $330.14 · 2025-12-02
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$707,917
@ $325.93 · 2025-11-21
TANEJA RAJAT
Officer
$2.08M
@ $330.00 · 2025-11-21
CARNEY LLOYD
Director
$302,832
@ $336.48 · 2025-11-04
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.58M
@ $341.00 · 2025-11-03
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.59M
@ $342.30 · 2025-10-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.65M
@ $348.57 · 2025-09-02
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$697,329
@ $344.02 · 2025-08-18
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.60M
@ $343.13 · 2025-08-14
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.05M
@ $353.82 · 2025-07-01
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$4.36M
@ $375.00 · 2025-06-11
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$17.10M
@ $370.00 · 2025-06-05
TANEJA RAJAT
President
$18.44M
@ $368.87 · 2025-06-05
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.13M
@ $362.77 · 2025-06-02
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$6.32M
@ $357.45 · 2025-05-12
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$5.26M
@ $355.04 · 2025-05-08
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$889,868
@ $345.58 · 2025-05-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.98M
@ $345.58 · 2025-05-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.02M
@ $350.44 · 2025-04-01
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$13.40M
@ $340.41 · 2025-03-19
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$12.88M
@ $327.20 · 2025-03-14
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.13M
@ $363.00 · 2025-03-03
MAHON TULLIER KELLY
Officer
$11.80M
@ $349.77 · 2025-02-07
ANDRESKI PETER M
Officer
$815,314
@ $349.62 · 2025-02-07
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$874,480
@ $340.00 · 2025-02-03
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.93M
@ $340.00 · 2025-02-03
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.74M
@ $317.78 · 2025-01-02
TANEJA RAJAT
Officer
$11.15M
@ $315.55 · 2024-12-13
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.73M
@ $316.90 · 2024-12-02
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$668,603
@ $307.97 · 2024-11-22
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
😏Greed(71/100)

"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.
V
FearGreed
😏Greed(73/100)

"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 →
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: Greed (71)
V
⚪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 (73)
View FANG Full AnalysisView V Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: FANG vs V

Is Diamondback Energy, Inc. or Visa Inc. more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, V trades at a -26.1% margin of safety (intrinsic value $328 vs. price $414), compared to FANG's -58.5% margin of safety (intrinsic $134 vs. $212).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Diamondback Energy, Inc. or Visa Inc.?▼

V scores 99/100 (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. V scores 8.1 (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 Visa Inc.?▼

Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) generates a 8.5% free cash flow yield, compared to Visa 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 Visa Inc.?▼

V earns 39.7% ROIC versus FANG's 11.0%. 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 Visa Inc.'s?▼

V's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to FANG's 60/100 (Safe). V has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

FANG vs V: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io