The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) vs Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZBRA): 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%. ZBRA is fairly valued at $236, with an intrinsic value of $237 and a margin of safety of 0%. Of the two, GS has the wider margin of safety.
Rewards
- ★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.
- ★Zebra Technologies Corporation scores 74/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
- ★Free cash flow has grown at a 26.2% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
- ★Trailing P/E of 28.5x is 21% below the historical average of 35.9x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
Risks
- ⚠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.
- ⚠ROIC has declined by 6.6 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
- ⚠FCF yield of 7.4% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
Key Valuation Metrics
Learn more →Historical Fundamentals
Learn more →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.
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 →> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
> $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 →Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth
Learn more →Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.
What growth rate is the market pricing in at $236?
The market implies +11.8% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.
Standard FCF implies a demanding +5.3%, reflecting heavy growth investment.
Economic Moat Score
Learn more →Narrow moat with reinvestment efficiency as the key competitive advantage. Improving margin stability would strengthen the moat.
Wide moat driven primarily by roic consistency. Revenue Predictability is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.
Forensic Accounting
Learn more →M-Score Trend
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.
Ownership Breakdown
Learn more →High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
Insider Buying Activity
Learn more →Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.
Insider Selling Activity
Learn more →Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.
🎭 Mr. Market's Mood
Learn more →"Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"
"Market is pessimistic — investigate whether fears are temporary or structural"
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 →The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
Frequently Asked Questions: GS vs ZBRA
Is The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. or Zebra Technologies Corporation 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 ZBRA's 0.4% margin of safety (intrinsic $237 vs. $236).
Which stock has a wider economic moat, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. or Zebra Technologies Corporation?▼
ZBRA scores 74/100 (Wide moat), while GS scores 65/100 (Narrow 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. ZBRA scores 3.3 (Safe 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 Zebra Technologies Corporation?▼
ZBRA earns 10.5% 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.