Compare StocksGS vs LUV

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) vs Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, GS is undervalued at $1097, with a DCF intrinsic value of $2507 and a margin of safety of 56%. LUV is undervalued at $48, with an intrinsic value of $66 and a margin of safety of 27%. Of the two, GS has the wider margin of safety.

GS
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
$1096.56
VS
LUV
Southwest Airlines Co.
$47.97

Rewards

GS
  • Gross margin of 82.3% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Share count has been reduced by 11% over the past 4 years through buybacks, increasing each share's claim on earnings.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.58 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
LUV
  • Share count has been reduced by 13% over the past 4 years through buybacks, increasing each share's claim on earnings.
  • Trailing P/E of 32.0x is 22% below the historical average of 41.2x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
  • PEG ratio of 0.32 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.

Risks

GS
  • Trailing P/E of 20.0x is 36% above the historical average of 14.7x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.25 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • 7 insider sales totaling $35.6M with no purchases in the past 3 months — insiders are reducing their exposure.
LUV
  • Gross margin of 23.0% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • Buybacks have been poorly timed — 2 out of 2 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
  • Beneish M-Score of -1.64 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
GS
LUV
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$-372.38M
N/A
FCF Yield
-1.59%
20.03
Trailing P/E
31.98
16.71
Forward P/E
10.59
Quality & Moat
1.95%
ROIC
7.83%
14.55%
ROE
10.06%
82.27%
Gross Margin
23.01%
1.68
PEG Ratio
0.32
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
0.45
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
1.39
1.65%
Dividend Yield
1.52%
GS: 5Ties: 1LUV: 3
GSLUV

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.

LUV

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
$5.60
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$26.00B
Δ Market Cap
+$145.60B
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
LUV
$11.48
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$114.0M
Δ Market Cap
+$1.31B
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
56.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 56.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $1096.56
Fair Value: $2506.96
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
LUV
22.9% Margin of Safety
Price is 22.9% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $47.97
Fair Value: $62.25
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
GS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

LUV

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.
LUV
37/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable moat detected, though revenue predictability 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.

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.
LUV
-1.64
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 →
GS
Insiders 0.5%Institutions 74.6%Retail & Other 24.8%
No. of Institutional Holders3,780
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.
LUV
Insiders 1.0%Institutions 89.5%Retail & Other 9.5%
No. of Institutional Holders1,130
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
LUV
0
Buys (3M)
2
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $145,455
SARETSKY GREGG A
Director
$100,447
@ $30.03 · 2025-08-06
FEINBERG SARAH
Director
$45,008
@ $30.01 · 2025-08-05
SARETSKY GREGG A
Director
$100,169
@ $27.29 · 2025-04-30
BREBER PIERRE R.
Director
$268,877
@ $26.89 · 2025-04-29
HESS DAVID P
Director
$198,900
@ $26.52 · 2025-04-28
FEINBERG SARAH
Director
$15,740
@ $31.48 · 2025-03-14
WATSON PATRICIA A
Director
$99,935
@ $30.58 · 2025-03-13
REYNOLDS CHRISTOPHER P.
Director
$99,955
@ $30.68 · 2025-03-13
CUSH C DAVID
Director
$150,150
@ $30.03 · 2025-03-12
ATHERTON LISA M
Director
$3,691
@ $31.28 · 2025-01-30
GANGWAL RAKESH
Director
$7.11M
@ $29.39 · 2024-10-01
GANGWAL RAKESH
Director
$4.83M
@ $29.15 · 2024-10-01
GANGWAL RAKESH
Director
$3.75M
@ $29.49 · 2024-10-01
GANGWAL RAKESH
Director
$15.87M
@ $29.89 · 2024-10-01
GANGWAL RAKESH
Director
$19.30M
@ $29.98 · 2024-10-01
KELLY GARY C
Officer and Director
$1.00M
@ $29.52 · 2024-09-30
GANGWAL RAKESH
Director
$34.92M
@ $29.47 · 2024-09-30
GANGWAL RAKESH
Director
$20.93M
@ $29.65 · 2024-09-30
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
7
Sells (3M)
17
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $92.56M
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
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$9.57M
@ $929.17 · 2026-05-01
RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
General Counsel
$634,927
@ $929.61 · 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
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$4.49M
@ $923.75 · 2026-01-23
RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
General Counsel
$8.89M
@ $927.51 · 2026-01-23
HALIO CAREY
Officer
$1.62M
@ $920.62 · 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
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$4.71M
@ $712.31 · 2025-07-23
ROGERS JOHN F W
Officer
$4.31M
@ $717.39 · 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
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$1.28M
@ $627.01 · 2025-01-21
RUEMMLER KATHRYN H
General Counsel
$4.76M
@ $634.69 · 2025-01-21
HALIO CAREY
Officer
$965,120
@ $624.67 · 2025-01-21
VINIAR DAVID A
Director
$3.06M
@ $612.08 · 2024-11-29
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$4.00M
@ $610.91 · 2024-11-29
FREDMAN SHEARA J.
Officer
$1.77M
@ $594.51 · 2024-11-06
COLEMAN DENIS P.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.67M
@ $593.03 · 2024-11-06
ROGERS JOHN F W
Officer
$3.83M
@ $596.36 · 2024-11-06
SOLOMON DAVID M
Chief Executive Officer
$3.00M
@ $500.29 · 2024-08-15
VINIAR DAVID A
Director
$2.51M
@ $502.43 · 2024-07-16
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
LUV
0
Sells (3M)
1
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $302,056
JONES JUSTIN
Officer
$302,056
@ $37.36 · 2025-12-05
RUTHERFORD LINDA B
Officer
$132,386
@ $34.39 · 2024-12-06
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
😏Greed(66/100)

"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.
LUV
FearGreed
😐Neutral(54/100)

"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 →
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: Greed (66)
LUV
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 (54)
View GS Full AnalysisView LUV Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: GS vs LUV

Is The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. or Southwest Airlines Co. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, GS trades at a 56.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $2507 vs. price $1097), compared to LUV's 27.3% margin of safety (intrinsic $66 vs. $48).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. or Southwest Airlines Co.?

GS scores 65/100 (Narrow moat), while LUV scores 37/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

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

GS's Altman Z-Score of 0.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. LUV scores 2.2 (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, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. or Southwest Airlines Co.?

LUV earns 7.8% ROIC versus GS's 1.9%. 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, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s or Southwest Airlines Co.'s?

GS's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to LUV's 46/100 (Borderline). GS has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

Does Southwest Airlines Co. have accounting red flags?

LUV's Beneish M-Score of -1.6 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, GS scores -2.0, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.