Compare StocksFICO vs NVDA

Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) vs NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-09-17, FICO is undervalued at $967, with a DCF intrinsic value of $1352 and a margin of safety of 28%. NVDA is overvalued at $219, with an intrinsic value of $163 and a margin of safety of -34%. Of the two, FICO has the wider margin of safety.

FICO
Fair Isaac Corporation
$967.40
VS
NVDA
NVIDIA Corporation
$218.68

Rewards

FICO
  • Fair Isaac Corporation has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Gross margin of 85.1% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Fair Isaac Corporation scores 100/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
NVDA
  • NVIDIA Corporation has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
  • Gross margin of 74.7% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 193.9% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.

Risks

FICO
  • Net debt/EBITDA of 4.2x indicates heavy leverage — it would take over 4 years of EBITDA to pay off net debt.
NVDA
  • FCF yield of 1.8% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Beneish M-Score of -1.06 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.
  • 19 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
FICO
NVDA
Valuation
$774.41M
Free Cash Flow
$96.68B
3.71%
FCF Yield
1.83%
28.04
Trailing P/E
27.65
18.21
Forward P/E
13.94
Quality & Moat
18.17%
ROIC
59.19%
N/A
ROE
117.21%
85.10%
Gross Margin
74.67%
0.73
PEG Ratio
0.45
Balance Sheet Safety
N/A
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
4.23
Net Debt / EBITDA
-0.12
0.00%
Dividend Yield
0.47%
FICO: 2Ties: 2NVDA: 6
FICONVDA

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
FICO

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.

NVDA

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 →
FICO
$15.76
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$1.59B
Δ Market Cap
+$25.12B
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
NVDA
$18.56
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$220.50B
Δ Market Cap
+$4.09T
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 →
FICO
28.4% Margin of Safety
Price is 28.4% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $967.40
Fair Value: $1351.62
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
NVDA
42.2% Margin of Safety
Price is 42.2% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $218.68
Fair Value: $378.65
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
FICO

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $967?

+17.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +14.9%

The market implies +17.2% Owner Earnings growth, roughly in line with history — reasonably priced.

Standard FCF implies +14.9%, reflecting ongoing growth investment.

NVDA

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $219?

+18.4%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +21.4%

The market implies +18.4% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +21.4%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

Economic Moat Score

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

Narrow moat with roic consistency as the key competitive advantage. Improving revenue predictability 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 →
FICO
-2.68
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.
NVDA
-1.06
Likely 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 →
FICO
Insiders 3.0%Institutions 102.3%
No. of Institutional Holders1,266
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.
NVDA
Insiders 4.0%Institutions 71.4%Retail & Other 24.6%
No. of Institutional Holders7,734
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 →
FICO
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
NVDA
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 →
FICO
1
Sells (3M)
7
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $15.78M
MANOLIS EVA
Director
$1.35M
@ $1400.00 · 2026-07-29
MANOLIS EVA
Director
$638,368
@ $1227.63 · 2026-02-25
WEBER STEVEN P.
Chief Financial Officer
$2.58M
@ $1810.00 · 2025-12-17
MANOLIS EVA
Director
$951,257
@ $1825.83 · 2025-12-12
MCMORRIS MARC F
Director
$434,287
@ $1809.53 · 2025-11-26
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$8.06M
@ $1631.34 · 2025-10-14
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$1.76M
@ $1650.17 · 2025-10-14
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$9.24M
@ $1537.50 · 2025-09-09
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$9.03M
@ $1501.84 · 2025-08-28
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$5.97M
@ $1565.99 · 2025-07-08
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$3.92M
@ $1780.48 · 2025-07-08
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$10.62M
@ $1767.82 · 2025-06-10
WEBER STEVEN P.
Chief Financial Officer
$1.74M
@ $1738.25 · 2025-06-09
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$11.64M
@ $2147.97 · 2025-05-13
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$1.28M
@ $2170.34 · 2025-05-13
MCMORRIS MARC F
Director
$1.66M
@ $2087.50 · 2025-05-09
BOWERS THOMAS A
Officer
$8.39M
@ $2057.05 · 2025-05-02
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$5.14M
@ $1683.35 · 2025-04-08
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$5.21M
@ $1761.13 · 2025-04-08
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$3.25M
@ $1694.38 · 2025-03-11
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$7.07M
@ $1727.69 · 2025-03-11
LANSING WILLIAM J
Chief Executive Officer
$10.84M
@ $1804.23 · 2025-02-11
WEBER STEVEN P.
Chief Financial Officer
$273,054
@ $1964.42 · 2025-01-08
MCMORRIS MARC F
Director
$1.12M
@ $2152.57 · 2024-12-17
WEHMANN JAMES M.
Officer
$6.59M
@ $2195.19 · 2024-12-12
SCADINA MARK R
General Counsel
$2,390
@ $2390.00 · 2024-12-09
SCADINA MARK R
General Counsel
$6.16M
@ $2389.99 · 2024-12-06
WEHMANN JAMES M.
Officer
$8.31M
@ $2373.85 · 2024-12-05
WEHMANN JAMES M.
Officer
$8.12M
@ $2320.41 · 2024-11-21
KELLY BRADEN R
Director
$9.10M
@ $2343.43 · 2024-11-11
BOWERS THOMAS A
Officer
$6.27M
@ $2338.21 · 2024-11-11
REY DAVID A
Director
$10.95M
@ $2340.28 · 2024-11-11
STANSBURY HENRY TAYLOE
Director
$582,299
@ $2338.55 · 2024-11-11
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
NVDA
0
Sells (3M)
19
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $423.87M
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$133,750
@ $214.00 · 2026-05-27
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$942,944
@ $174.75 · 2026-03-20
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$3.36M
@ $176.71 · 2026-03-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$555,440
@ $184.90 · 2026-03-13
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$15.19M
@ $189.85 · 2026-01-02
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$4.43M
@ $179.98 · 2025-12-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$112,317
@ $179.42 · 2025-11-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$5.20M
@ $207.91 · 2025-10-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$23.56M
@ $188.47 · 2025-10-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.73M
@ $181.04 · 2025-10-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.06M
@ $182.48 · 2025-10-20
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.34M
@ $183.73 · 2025-10-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.89M
@ $190.60 · 2025-10-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.05M
@ $186.89 · 2025-10-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.09M
@ $187.08 · 2025-10-02
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.23M
@ $178.82 · 2025-09-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.21M
@ $178.69 · 2025-09-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.18M
@ $174.14 · 2025-09-19
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$617,298
@ $176.37 · 2025-09-19
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.75M
@ $176.66 · 2025-09-16
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.28M
@ $174.59 · 2025-09-11
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.01M
@ $168.95 · 2025-09-08
HUDSON BEACH DAWN E
Director
$15.38M
@ $170.90 · 2025-09-03
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.61M
@ $171.60 · 2025-09-03
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$27.12M
@ $180.79 · 2025-08-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.96M
@ $182.04 · 2025-08-13
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.66M
@ $180.70 · 2025-08-08
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.78M
@ $176.80 · 2025-08-05
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.18M
@ $178.58 · 2025-07-31
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.16M
@ $174.02 · 2025-07-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.22M
@ $169.87 · 2025-07-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.71M
@ $172.05 · 2025-07-18
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$37.59M
@ $167.08 · 2025-07-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$36.43M
@ $161.91 · 2025-07-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.55M
@ $158.02 · 2025-07-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.16M
@ $156.27 · 2025-07-01
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$30.47M
@ $152.33 · 2025-06-26
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$14.40M
@ $144.04 · 2025-06-23
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$646,469
@ $143.66 · 2025-06-20
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.74M
@ $134.82 · 2025-05-30
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$91,608
@ $138.80 · 2025-05-30
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.79M
@ $116.83 · 2025-03-21
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$525,585
@ $116.80 · 2025-03-21
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$2.37M
@ $118.42 · 2025-03-20
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.16M
@ $115.49 · 2025-03-13
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$292,930
@ $110.00 · 2025-03-10
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 →
FICO
FearGreed
😨Fear(24/100)

"Market is pessimistic — investigate whether fears are temporary or structural"

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.
NVDA
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.

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 →
FICO
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: Fear (24)
NVDA
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)
View FICO Full AnalysisView NVDA Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: FICO vs NVDA

Is Fair Isaac Corporation or NVIDIA Corporation more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, FICO trades at a 28.4% margin of safety (intrinsic value $1352 vs. price $967), compared to NVDA's -34.1% margin of safety (intrinsic $163 vs. $219).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Fair Isaac Corporation or NVIDIA Corporation?

FICO scores 100/100 (Wide moat), while NVDA scores 69/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Which company has better free cash flow, Fair Isaac Corporation or NVIDIA Corporation?

Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) generates a 3.7% free cash flow yield, compared to NVIDIA Corporation's 1.8%. 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, Fair Isaac Corporation or NVIDIA Corporation?

NVDA earns 59.2% ROIC versus FICO's 18.2%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Does NVIDIA Corporation have accounting red flags?

NVDA's Beneish M-Score of -1.1 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, FICO scores -2.7, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.