SafetyMargin.ioSafetyMargin.io
BlogWatchlistCompare
Compare Stocks › GOOGL vs L

Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) vs Loews Corporation (L): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, GOOGL is overvalued at $280, with a DCF intrinsic value of $8 and a margin of safety of -3448%. L is undervalued at $111, with an intrinsic value of $610 and a margin of safety of 82%. Of the two, L has the wider margin of safety.

GOOGL
Alphabet Inc.
$279.84
VS
L
Loews Corporation
$111.32

Rewards

GOOGL
  • ★Alphabet Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • ★Gross margin of 60.9% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Alphabet Inc. scores 89/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
L
  • ★Loews Corporation scores 97/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • ★Share count has been reduced by 13% over the past 4 years through buybacks, increasing each share's claim on earnings.
  • ★Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.24 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

GOOGL
    L
    • ⚠Altman Z-Score of 0.69 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.

    Key Valuation Metrics

    Learn more →
    GOOGL
    L
    Valuation
    $-1.16B
    Free Cash Flow
    $2.70B
    -0.03%
    FCF Yield
    11.86%
    14.61
    Trailing P/E
    13.64
    18.49
    Forward P/E
    38.39
    Quality & Moat
    14.30%
    ROIC
    7.41%
    44.29%
    ROE
    9.31%
    60.86%
    Gross Margin
    36.29%
    0.98
    PEG Ratio
    1.32
    Balance Sheet Safety
    Net cash
    Net Debt / Equity
    0.13
    N/A
    Interest Coverage
    N/A
    -0.62
    Net Debt / EBITDA
    0.78
    0.31%
    Dividend Yield
    0.22%
    GOOGL: 8Ties: 1L: 3
    GOOGLL

    Historical Fundamentals

    Learn more →
    GOOGL

    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.

    L

    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 →
    GOOGL
    $9.18
    created per $1 retained over 3 years
    Exceptional Value Creator
    Σ Retained
    $288.67B
    Δ Market Cap
    +$2.65T
    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
    L
    $1.82
    created per $1 retained over 3 years
    Value Creator
    Σ Retained
    $4.35B
    Δ Market Cap
    +$7.93B
    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 →
    GOOGL
    3447.8% Overvalued
    Price is 3447.8% above estimated fair value
    Current Price: $279.84
    Fair Value: $7.89
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued
    L
    81.7% Margin of Safety
    Price is 81.7% below estimated fair value
    Current Price: $111.32
    Fair Value: $609.59
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued

    Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

    Learn more →
    GOOGL

    Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

    L

    What growth rate is the market pricing in at $111?

    +3.7%
    Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
    Standard FCF implies -2.8%

    The market implies +3.7% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

    Standard FCF implies a more demanding -2.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

    Economic Moat Score

    Learn more →
    GOOGL
    89/100
    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.
    L
    97/100
    Wide Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. Margin Stability 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 →
    GOOGL
    -2.92
    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.
    L
    -2.53
    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 →
    GOOGL
    Insiders 1.6%Institutions 80.8%Retail & Other 17.6%
    No. of Institutional Holders7,451
    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.
    L
    Insiders 20.1%Institutions 61.7%Retail & Other 18.2%
    No. of Institutional Holders1,114
    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 →
    GOOGL
    0
    Buys (3M)
    0
    Buys (12M)
    No open market insider purchases found.
    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
    L
    0
    Buys (3M)
    2
    Buys (12M)
    Total value (12M): $1.05M
    ROBUSTO DINO E
    Director
    $523,700
    @ $104.74 · 2026-05-29
    ROBUSTO DINO E
    Director
    $527,200
    @ $105.44 · 2026-05-05
    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 →
    GOOGL
    0
    Sells (3M)
    0
    Sells (12M)
    No open market insider sales found.
    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
    L
    0
    Sells (3M)
    8
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $1.67M
    SCHWARTZ MARK S
    Officer and Treasurer
    $346,500
    @ $110.00 · 2026-02-17
    BERMAN ANN E
    Director
    $211,728
    @ $110.16 · 2026-02-10
    ALPERT MARC A
    General Counsel
    $383,983
    @ $109.87 · 2026-02-10
    SCOTT RICHARD WALDO
    Chief Investment Officer
    $104,740
    @ $104.74 · 2025-12-11
    DIKER CHARLES M
    Director
    $155,635
    @ $107.93 · 2025-12-01
    HARRIS WALTER L
    Director
    $155,563
    @ $107.88 · 2025-12-01
    BERMAN ANN E
    Director
    $156,096
    @ $108.10 · 2025-12-01
    FRIBOURG PAUL J
    Director
    $155,923
    @ $108.13 · 2025-12-01
    DIKER CHARLES M
    Director
    $137,593
    @ $96.76 · 2025-09-02
    HARRIS WALTER L
    Director
    $137,396
    @ $96.69 · 2025-09-02
    BERMAN ANN E
    Director
    $137,465
    @ $96.67 · 2025-09-02
    FRIBOURG PAUL J
    Director
    $137,493
    @ $96.69 · 2025-09-02
    FRIBOURG PAUL J
    Director
    $113,068
    @ $88.82 · 2025-06-03
    DIKER CHARLES M
    Director
    $112,583
    @ $88.37 · 2025-06-02
    HARRIS WALTER L
    Director
    $113,157
    @ $88.82 · 2025-06-02
    BERMAN ANN E
    Director
    $113,068
    @ $88.82 · 2025-06-02
    SCOTT RICHARD WALDO
    Chief Investment Officer
    $792,950
    @ $87.92 · 2025-05-08
    DIKER CHARLES M
    Director
    $103,816
    @ $86.73 · 2025-03-03
    HARRIS WALTER L
    Director
    $103,983
    @ $86.87 · 2025-03-03
    WELTERS ANTHONY
    Director
    $103,983
    @ $86.87 · 2025-03-03
    BERMAN ANN E
    Director
    $104,019
    @ $86.90 · 2025-03-03
    FRIBOURG PAUL J
    Director
    $104,007
    @ $86.89 · 2025-03-03
    SCOTT RICHARD WALDO
    Chief Investment Officer
    $689,405
    @ $84.60 · 2025-02-25
    ALPERT MARC A
    General Counsel
    $382,680
    @ $85.04 · 2025-02-11
    TISCH JONATHAN M.
    Retired
    $639,494
    @ $86.81 · 2025-02-07
    TISCH ANDREW H
    Divisional Officer
    $1.37M
    @ $84.67 · 2025-01-03
    TISCH JONATHAN M.
    Divisional Officer
    $1.38M
    @ $84.86 · 2025-01-02
    DIKER CHARLES M
    Director
    $99,507
    @ $86.83 · 2024-12-02
    HARRIS WALTER L
    Director
    $99,278
    @ $86.63 · 2024-12-02
    FRIBOURG PAUL J
    Director
    $99,484
    @ $86.81 · 2024-12-02
    WELTERS ANTHONY
    Director
    $99,484
    @ $86.81 · 2024-12-02
    BERMAN ANN E
    Director
    $99,106
    @ $86.48 · 2024-12-02
    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 →
    GOOGL
    FearGreed
    😨Fear(23/100)

    "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.
    L
    FearGreed
    😏Greed(64/100)

    "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 →
    GOOGL
    ⚪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 (23)
    L
    ⚪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 (64)
    View GOOGL Full AnalysisView L Full Analysis

    Frequently Asked Questions: GOOGL vs L

    Is Alphabet Inc. or Loews Corporation more undervalued in 2026?▼

    Based on our discounted cash flow model, L trades at a 81.7% margin of safety (intrinsic value $610 vs. price $111), compared to GOOGL's -3447.8% margin of safety (intrinsic $8 vs. $280).

    Which stock has a wider economic moat, Alphabet Inc. or Loews Corporation?▼

    L scores 97/100 (Wide moat), while GOOGL scores 89/100 (Wide moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

    Is Loews Corporation in financial distress?▼

    L's Altman Z-Score of 0.7 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. GOOGL scores 2.4 (Grey 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, Alphabet Inc. or Loews Corporation?▼

    Loews Corporation (L) generates a 11.9% free cash flow yield, compared to Alphabet Inc.'s -0.0%. 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, Alphabet Inc. or Loews Corporation?▼

    GOOGL earns 14.3% ROIC versus L's 7.4%. 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, Alphabet Inc.'s or Loews Corporation's?▼

    GOOGL's dividend earns a safety score of 88/100 (Very Safe), compared to L's 85/100 (Very Safe). GOOGL has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years.

    GOOGL vs L: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io