Compare Stocks › GLW vs META

Corning Incorporated (GLW) vs Meta Platforms, Inc. (META): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, GLW is fairly valued at $123, with a DCF intrinsic value of $139 and a margin of safety of 11%. META is undervalued at $615, with an intrinsic value of $964 and a margin of safety of 36%. Of the two, META has the wider margin of safety.

GLW
Corning Incorporated
$123.31
VS
META
Meta Platforms, Inc.
$614.99

Rewards

GLW
  • ★Free cash flow has grown at a 11.8% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
  • ★PEG ratio of 0.71 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.
  • ★Altman Z-Score of 4.04 indicates very low bankruptcy risk — the company is firmly in the safe zone.
META
  • ★Meta Platforms, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • ★Gross margin of 81.0% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Meta Platforms, Inc. scores 80/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.

Risks

GLW
  • ⚠Despite buyback spending, shares outstanding increased in 3 out of 4 years — stock-based compensation is offsetting repurchases.
  • ⚠FCF yield of 1.3% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • ⚠Insiders have sold $3.5M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
META
  • ⚠Buybacks have been poorly timed — 3 out of 4 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
  • ⚠FCF yield of 2.9% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • ⚠Insiders have sold $7.2M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
GLW
META
Valuation
$1.41B
Free Cash Flow
$46.11B
1.33%
FCF Yield
2.93%
49.92
Trailing P/E
20.98
27.25
Forward P/E
17.28
Quality & Moat
11.31%
ROIC
17.46%
17.88%
ROE
32.26%
36.48%
Gross Margin
81.03%
0.71
PEG Ratio
0.80
Balance Sheet Safety
0.46
Net Debt / Equity
0.12
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
1.49
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.28
0.91%
Dividend Yield
0.34%
GLW: 2Ties: 1META: 9
GLWMETA

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
GLW

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.

META

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 →
GLW
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-291.0M
Δ Market Cap
+$48.78B
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
META
$8.94
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$151.52B
Δ Market Cap
+$1.36T
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 →
GLW
11.1% Margin of Safety
Price is 11.1% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $123.31
Fair Value: $138.76
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
META
36.2% Margin of Safety
Price is 36.2% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $614.99
Fair Value: $963.95
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
GLW

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $123?

+24.4%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +26.7%

The market implies +24.4% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +26.7%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

META

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $615?

+11.6%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +15.2%

The market implies +11.6% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +15.2%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
GLW
36/100
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.
META
80/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by roic consistency. Reinvestment Efficiency 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 →
GLW
-2.38
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.
META
-3.04
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 →
GLW
Insiders 8.1%Institutions 74.7%Retail & Other 17.2%
No. of Institutional Holders3,126
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.
META
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 77.5%Retail & Other 22.3%
No. of Institutional Holders6,645
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 →
GLW
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
META
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 →
GLW
2
Sells (3M)
26
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $76.66M
GULLO MICHELLE L
Officer
$1.50M
@ $152.29 · 2026-09-04
STEVERSON LEWIS A
Officer
$1.98M
@ $151.29 · 2026-08-28
WEEKS WENDELL P.
Chief Executive Officer
$18.65M
@ $186.46 · 2026-06-09
AMIN JAYMIN
Chief Technology Officer
$5.26M
@ $192.14 · 2026-05-22
NELSON AVERY H III
Chief Operating Officer
$3.92M
@ $195.93 · 2026-05-15
VERKLEEREN RONALD L
Officer
$2.08M
@ $207.77 · 2026-05-13
ZHANG JOHN Z
Officer
$1.98M
@ $198.34 · 2026-05-11
SEETHARAM SOUMYA
Chief Technology Officer
$4.12M
@ $206.23 · 2026-05-11
TILLMAN MICHAUNE D.
General Counsel
$674,870
@ $207.02 · 2026-05-11
STEVERSON LEWIS A
Officer
$5.44M
@ $196.06 · 2026-05-08
GULLO MICHELLE L
Officer
$1.00M
@ $189.03 · 2026-05-08
BECKER STEFAN
Officer
$3.95M
@ $188.08 · 2026-05-08
SCHLESINGER EDWARD A
Chief Financial Officer
$4.20M
@ $186.08 · 2026-05-07
ZHANG JOHN Z
Officer
$2.77M
@ $184.67 · 2026-05-06
ZHANG JOHN Z
Officer
$204,765
@ $133.75 · 2026-02-12
NELSON AVERY H III
Chief Operating Officer
$203,800
@ $128.74 · 2026-02-11
STEVERSON LEWIS A
Officer
$2.00M
@ $130.22 · 2026-02-10
KAMMERUD JORDANA DARYL
Officer
$3.83M
@ $127.67 · 2026-02-09
NELSON AVERY H III
Chief Operating Officer
$812,722
@ $129.79 · 2026-02-09
MUSSER ERIC S.
Retired
$1.95M
@ $130.25 · 2026-02-09
FANG LI
Officer
$1.11M
@ $113.51 · 2026-02-04
O'DAY MICHAEL PAUL
Officer
$558,232
@ $110.52 · 2026-02-02
MUSSER ERIC S.
Retired
$2.75M
@ $110.00 · 2026-02-02
SCHLESINGER EDWARD A
Chief Financial Officer
$2.21M
@ $104.55 · 2026-01-29
VERKLEEREN RONALD L
Officer
$1.99M
@ $94.69 · 2025-12-10
SEETHARAM SOUMYA
Chief Technology Officer
$1.50M
@ $90.78 · 2025-12-10
SCHLESINGER EDWARD A
Chief Financial Officer
$1.91M
@ $91.25 · 2025-10-31
STEVERSON LEWIS A
Officer
$2.06M
@ $89.05 · 2025-10-31
BECKER STEFAN
Officer
$1.10M
@ $91.28 · 2025-10-29
MUSSER ERIC S.
Retired
$9.02M
@ $90.17 · 2025-10-29
AMIN JAYMIN
Chief Technology Officer
$1.37M
@ $77.18 · 2025-09-17
MUSSER ERIC S.
President
$1.40M
@ $70.23 · 2025-09-04
ZHANG JOHN Z
Officer
$79,425
@ $65.53 · 2025-08-12
MUSSER ERIC S.
President
$1.23M
@ $65.31 · 2025-08-11
WEEKS WENDELL P.
Chief Executive Officer
$5.35M
@ $65.19 · 2025-08-07
MUSSER ERIC S.
President
$1.32M
@ $65.88 · 2025-08-07
SCHLESINGER EDWARD A
Chief Financial Officer
$877,013
@ $62.28 · 2025-07-30
STEVERSON LEWIS A
Officer
$1.04M
@ $62.22 · 2025-07-30
O'DAY MICHAEL PAUL
Officer
$927,912
@ $62.36 · 2025-07-30
NELSON AVERY H III
Chief Operating Officer
$2.26M
@ $62.26 · 2025-07-30
VERKLEEREN RONALD L
Officer
$1.01M
@ $50.52 · 2025-06-11
MUSSER ERIC S.
President
$1.02M
@ $51.11 · 2025-06-06
SCHLESINGER EDWARD A
Chief Financial Officer
$222,534
@ $49.85 · 2025-06-02
SEETHARAM SOUMYA
Chief Technology Officer
$325,285
@ $50.01 · 2025-05-29
BECKER STEFAN
Officer
$849,838
@ $49.68 · 2025-05-29
ZHANG JOHN Z
Officer
$473,679
@ $49.29 · 2025-05-28
SEETHARAM SOUMYA
Chief Technology Officer
$715,797
@ $50.01 · 2025-05-28
ZHANG JOHN Z
Officer
$375,294
@ $46.91 · 2025-05-12
BELL MICHAEL ALAN
Retired
$892,768
@ $44.06 · 2025-04-30
WEEKS WENDELL P.
Chief Executive Officer
$5.01M
@ $50.08 · 2025-02-28
SCHLESINGER EDWARD A
Chief Financial Officer
$218,518
@ $52.82 · 2025-02-19
ZHANG JOHN Z
Officer
$744,757
@ $52.78 · 2025-02-18
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
META
3
Sells (3M)
39
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $40.55M
ANDERSON AARON
Officer
$2.00M
@ $618.06 · 2026-09-03
BOSWORTH ANDREW
Chief Technology Officer
$4.38M
@ $558.00 · 2026-08-18
MAHONEY CURTIS J
Officer
$847,581
@ $543.67 · 2026-08-18
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$280,780
@ $561.56 · 2026-08-03
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$303,875
@ $607.75 · 2026-07-01
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$317,162
@ $629.29 · 2026-06-01
MAHONEY CURTIS J
Officer
$1.27M
@ $609.92 · 2026-05-27
BOSWORTH ANDREW
Chief Technology Officer
$4.77M
@ $607.83 · 2026-05-18
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$386,860
@ $667.00 · 2026-04-15
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$366,572
@ $632.02 · 2026-03-16
BOSWORTH ANDREW
Chief Technology Officer
$5.11M
@ $631.24 · 2026-02-18
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$370,724
@ $639.18 · 2026-02-17
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$342,869
@ $663.19 · 2026-02-09
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$369,448
@ $714.60 · 2026-02-02
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$343,805
@ $665.00 · 2026-01-26
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$314,517
@ $608.35 · 2026-01-20
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$358,602
@ $618.28 · 2026-01-15
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$337,601
@ $653.00 · 2026-01-12
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$336,262
@ $650.41 · 2026-01-05
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$341,860
@ $658.69 · 2025-12-30
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$340,258
@ $658.14 · 2025-12-29
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$342,218
@ $659.38 · 2025-12-23
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$341,794
@ $661.11 · 2025-12-22
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$333,836
@ $643.23 · 2025-12-16
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$374,680
@ $646.00 · 2025-12-15
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$333,982
@ $646.00 · 2025-12-15
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$344,699
@ $664.16 · 2025-12-09
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$346,199
@ $669.63 · 2025-12-08
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$333,312
@ $642.22 · 2025-12-02
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$330,379
@ $639.03 · 2025-12-01
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$323,929
@ $624.14 · 2025-11-25
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$309,445
@ $598.54 · 2025-11-24
BOSWORTH ANDREW
Chief Technology Officer
$6.94M
@ $593.31 · 2025-11-18
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$307,040
@ $591.60 · 2025-11-18
ANDERSON AARON
Officer
$429,502
@ $591.60 · 2025-11-18
KIMMITT ROBERT M
Director
$365,610
@ $609.35 · 2025-11-17
OLIVAN JAVIER
Chief Operating Officer
$1.90M
@ $608.60 · 2025-11-17
BOSWORTH ANDREW
Chief Technology Officer
$3.09M
@ $609.46 · 2025-11-14
NEWSTEAD JENNIFER
Officer
$325,596
@ $631.00 · 2025-11-10
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 →
GLW
FearGreed
😨Fear(31/100)

"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.
META
FearGreed
😨Fear(33/100)

"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.

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 →
GLW
⚪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 (31)
META
⚪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 (33)
View GLW Full AnalysisView META Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: GLW vs META

Is Corning Incorporated or Meta Platforms, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, META trades at a 36.2% margin of safety (intrinsic value $964 vs. price $615), compared to GLW's 11.1% margin of safety (intrinsic $139 vs. $123).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Corning Incorporated or Meta Platforms, Inc.?▼

META scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while GLW scores 36/100 (None 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, Corning Incorporated or Meta Platforms, Inc.?▼

Meta Platforms, Inc. (META) generates a 2.9% free cash flow yield, compared to Corning Incorporated's 1.3%. 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, Corning Incorporated or Meta Platforms, Inc.?▼

META earns 17.5% ROIC versus GLW's 11.3%. 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, Corning Incorporated's or Meta Platforms, Inc.'s?▼

META's dividend earns a safety score of 88/100 (Very Safe), compared to GLW's 63/100 (Safe). META has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years.

GLW vs META: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io