Compare StocksGS vs LHX

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) (GS) vs L3Harris Technologies, Inc. (LHX): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, GS is undervalued at $1018, with a DCF intrinsic value of $481431875452 and a margin of safety of 100%. LHX is undervalued at $277, with an intrinsic value of $356 and a margin of safety of 22%. Of the two, GS has the wider margin of safety.

GS
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)
$1018.38
VS
LHX
L3Harris Technologies, Inc.
$277.06

Rewards

GS
  • Gross margin of 82.1% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.58 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
LHX
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 12.1% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $4.36 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

GS
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.16 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • Insiders have sold $20.4M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
LHX
  • 8 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
GS
LHX
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
N/A
N/A
FCF Yield
N/A
15.72
Trailing P/E
28.01
13.81
Forward P/E
20.39
Quality & Moat
2.46%
ROIC
3.20%
16.95%
ROE
7.01%
82.08%
Gross Margin
30.41%
1.45
PEG Ratio
1.58
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
0.30
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
3.23
1.96%
Dividend Yield
1.80%
GS: 7Ties: 1LHX: 1
GSLHX

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
GS

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.

LHX

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 →
GS
$0.00
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Value Destroyer
Σ Retained
$26.00B
Δ Market Cap
+$535.62
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
LHX
$9.04
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$1.68B
Δ Market Cap
+$15.16B
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 →
GS
100.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 100.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $1018.38
Fair Value: $481431875452.18
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
LHX
22.2% Margin of Safety
Price is 22.2% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $277.06
Fair Value: $355.96
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
GS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

LHX

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
GS
65/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with reinvestment efficiency as the key competitive advantage. Improving margin stability 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.
LHX
59/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with reinvestment efficiency as the key competitive advantage. Improving roic consistency 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 →
GS
-2.00
Possible 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.
LHX
-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.

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 →
GS
Insiders 0.5%Institutions 74.8%Retail & Other 24.7%
No. of Institutional Holders3,873
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.
LHX
Insiders 0.4%Institutions 89.7%Retail & Other 9.9%
No. of Institutional Holders2,100
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 →
GS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
HESS JOHN B JR.
Director
$2.00M
@ $511.68 · 2025-04-15
JOHNSON KEVIN RONALD
Director
$1.49M
@ $619.02 · 2025-01-17
FLAHERTY MARK A
Director
$29,545
@ $360.30 · 2024-09-27
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
LHX
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 →
GS
3
Sells (3M)
15
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $78.42M
LESLIE ERICKA T
Officer
$287,951
@ $1151.80 · 2026-07-15
COLEMAN DENIS P.
Chief Financial Officer
$6.68M
@ $973.55 · 2026-05-14
RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
General Counsel
$13.42M
@ $939.07 · 2026-05-06
RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
General Counsel
$634,927
@ $929.61 · 2026-05-01
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$9.57M
@ $929.17 · 2026-05-01
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$3.23M
@ $930.70 · 2026-05-01
GOLTEN ALEXANDER SIMON
Officer
$1.04M
@ $936.18 · 2026-04-23
GOLTEN ALEXANDER SIMON
Officer
$1.02M
@ $919.19 · 2026-04-17
COLEMAN DENIS P.
Chief Financial Officer
$10.94M
@ $941.57 · 2026-02-09
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$255,387
@ $938.92 · 2026-01-29
HALIO CAREY
Officer
$2.64M
@ $927.17 · 2026-01-27
RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
General Counsel
$8.89M
@ $927.51 · 2026-01-23
HALIO CAREY
Officer
$1.62M
@ $920.62 · 2026-01-23
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$4.49M
@ $923.75 · 2026-01-23
WALDRON JOHN E.
President
$13.69M
@ $750.30 · 2025-08-28
COLEMAN DENIS P.
Chief Financial Officer
$5.41M
@ $724.40 · 2025-07-25
ROGERS JOHN F W
Officer
$4.31M
@ $717.39 · 2025-07-23
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$4.71M
@ $712.31 · 2025-07-23
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$3.04M
@ $607.17 · 2025-05-14
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$1.50M
@ $622.15 · 2025-02-26
GOLTEN ALEXANDER SIMON
Officer
$3.31M
@ $636.25 · 2025-01-28
HALIO CAREY
Officer and Treasurer
$2.32M
@ $636.74 · 2025-01-24
HALIO CAREY
Officer
$965,120
@ $624.67 · 2025-01-21
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$1.28M
@ $627.01 · 2025-01-21
RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
General Counsel
$4.76M
@ $634.69 · 2025-01-21
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$4.00M
@ $610.91 · 2024-11-29
VINIAR DAVID A
Director
$3.06M
@ $612.08 · 2024-11-29
ROGERS JOHN F W
Officer
$3.83M
@ $596.36 · 2024-11-06
COLEMAN DENIS P.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.67M
@ $593.03 · 2024-11-06
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$1.77M
@ $594.51 · 2024-11-06
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$3.00M
@ $500.29 · 2024-08-15
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
LHX
0
Sells (3M)
8
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $45.82M
RAKITA MELANIE
Officer
$676,781
@ $310.45 · 2026-05-05
RAMBEAU JON
Officer
$2.05M
@ $370.32 · 2026-03-02
MEHTA SAMIR
Officer
$2.05M
@ $370.32 · 2026-03-02
RAKITA MELANIE
Officer
$1.09M
@ $348.38 · 2026-03-02
MEHTA SAMIR
Officer
$1.64M
@ $338.85 · 2026-02-05
KUBASIK CHRISTOPHER E
Chief Executive Officer
$4.27M
@ $301.05 · 2025-11-13
KUBASIK CHRISTOPHER E
Chief Executive Officer
$23.23M
@ $279.90 · 2025-09-12
KUBASIK CHRISTOPHER E
Chief Executive Officer
$10.82M
@ $269.52 · 2025-08-11
KUBASIK CHRISTOPHER E
Chief Executive Officer
$19.52M
@ $271.14 · 2025-07-29
KUBASIK CHRISTOPHER E
Chief Executive Officer
$8.76M
@ $248.39 · 2025-06-12
ZOISS EDWARD J
President
$490,000
@ $245.00 · 2025-05-27
RAMBEAU JON
Officer
$718,228
@ $226.00 · 2025-03-10
ZOISS EDWARD J
Officer
$1.09M
@ $211.68 · 2025-03-07
NIEBERGALL ROSS
Officer
$288,412
@ $210.06 · 2024-12-30
NIEBERGALL ROSS
Officer
$376,879
@ $213.65 · 2024-12-23
NIEBERGALL ROSS
Officer
$394,466
@ $223.62 · 2024-12-16
NIEBERGALL ROSS
Officer
$845,000
@ $260.00 · 2024-11-08
NIEBERGALL ROSS
Officer
$740,815
@ $247.93 · 2024-11-04
KUBASIK CHRISTOPHER E
Chief Executive Officer
$5.30M
@ $248.11 · 2024-10-31
NIEBERGALL ROSS
Officer
$731,104
@ $244.68 · 2024-10-02
NIEBERGALL ROSS
Officer
$707,200
@ $236.68 · 2024-09-03
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 →
GS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(53/100)

"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.
LHX
FearGreed
😨Fear(34/100)

"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 →
GS
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 (53)
LHX
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 (34)
View GS Full AnalysisView LHX Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: GS vs LHX

Is Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) or L3Harris Technologies, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, GS trades at a 100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $481431875452 vs. price $1018), compared to LHX's 22.2% margin of safety (intrinsic $356 vs. $277).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) or L3Harris Technologies, Inc.?

GS scores 65/100 (Narrow moat), while LHX scores 59/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) in financial distress?

GS's Altman Z-Score of 0.2 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. LHX 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 stock has higher return on invested capital, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) or L3Harris Technologies, Inc.?

LHX earns 3.2% ROIC versus GS's 2.5%. 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, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)'s or L3Harris Technologies, Inc.'s?

LHX's dividend earns a safety score of 84/100 (Very Safe), compared to GS's 79/100 (Safe). LHX has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

GS vs LHX: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io