Compare Stocks › HAS vs INTC

Hasbro, Inc. (HAS) vs Intel Corporation (INTC): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, HAS is overvalued at $119, with a DCF intrinsic value of $71 and a margin of safety of -68%. INTC is overvalued at $66, with an intrinsic value of $8 and a margin of safety of -697%. Of the two, HAS has the wider margin of safety.

HAS
Hasbro, Inc.
$119.09
VS
INTC
Intel Corporation
$65.76

Rewards

HAS
  • ★Gross margin of 65.3% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Free cash flow has grown at a 51.8% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
INTC
  • ★Net debt/EBITDA of -0.2x means the company holds more cash than debt — a net cash position.

Risks

HAS
  • ⚠High leverage (2.58x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • ⚠Insiders have sold $2.9M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
INTC
  • ⚠Intel Corporation scores only 17/100 on the Economic Moat Score, suggesting limited durable competitive advantages.
  • ⚠Share count has increased by 21% over the past 4 years, diluting existing shareholders.
  • ⚠FCF yield of 0.2% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
HAS
INTC
Valuation
$804.50M
Free Cash Flow
$670.37M
4.83%
FCF Yield
0.19%
17.75
Trailing P/E
N/A
17.07
Forward P/E
35.50
Quality & Moat
27.72%
ROIC
4.06%
139.78%
ROE
-9.62%
65.34%
Gross Margin
40.15%
1.71
PEG Ratio
1.36
Balance Sheet Safety
2.58
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
1.56
Net Debt / EBITDA
-0.20
2.35%
Dividend Yield
0.00%
HAS: 7Ties: 1INTC: 3
HASINTC

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
HAS

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.

INTC

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 →
HAS
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-2.60B
Δ Market Cap
+$3.08B
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
INTC
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-22.02B
Δ Market Cap
+$74.94B
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 →
HAS
68.4% Overvalued
Price is 68.4% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $119.09
Fair Value: $70.73
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
INTC
Insufficient Data
Enter initial FCF to calculate intrinsic value
Current Price: $65.76
Fair Value: $0.00
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
HAS

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $119?

+10.0%
Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

Market below historical growth — potential opportunity.

INTC

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $66?

+54.7%
Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

Market pricing in significantly higher growth than history — aggressive.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
HAS
40/100
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 5 years of fundamental data.
INTC
17/100
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 5 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
HAS

Insufficient data for Beneish M-Score calculation (requires 2+ years).

INTC
-2.83
Unlikely Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone
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 →
HAS
Insiders 0.6%Institutions 101.4%
No. of Institutional Holders1,061
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.
INTC
Insiders 13.9%Institutions 62.8%Retail & Other 23.3%
No. of Institutional Holders4,439
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 →
HAS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
INTC
1
Buys (3M)
2
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $10.25M
TAN LIP-BU
Chief Executive Officer
$10.00M
@ $95.00 · 2026-08-11
ZINSNER DAVID A
Chief Financial Officer
$249,985
@ $42.50 · 2026-01-26
GELSINGER PATRICK P
Chief Executive Officer
$251,198
@ $22.53 · 2024-11-04
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 →
HAS
4
Sells (3M)
16
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $50.16M
BARBACOVI HOLLY
Officer
$476,369
@ $94.20 · 2026-08-31
HIGHT JOHN
Officer
$1.10M
@ $94.63 · 2026-08-19
HIGHT JOHN
Officer
$1.08M
@ $96.29 · 2026-08-17
HAMREN ELIZABETH
Director
$272,784
@ $92.03 · 2026-08-07
GOETTER GINA M
Chief Financial Officer
$776,602
@ $93.96 · 2026-07-31
HIGHT JOHN
Officer
$298,551
@ $93.71 · 2026-07-30
GOETTER GINA M
Chief Financial Officer
$1.05M
@ $95.44 · 2026-07-28
KILPIN TIMOTHY J
Officer
$1.86M
@ $93.12 · 2026-07-28
COCKS CHRISTIAN P
Chief Executive Officer
$19.71M
@ $100.33 · 2026-02-26
BARBACOVI HOLLY
Officer
$437,929
@ $100.98 · 2026-02-20
KILPIN TIMOTHY J
Officer
$800,619
@ $103.00 · 2026-02-13
SIBLEY TARRANT LIVINGSTON III
Officer
$1.59M
@ $104.98 · 2026-02-12
GOETTER GINA M
Chief Financial Officer
$1.29M
@ $103.46 · 2026-02-12
COCKS CHRISTIAN P
Chief Executive Officer
$18.86M
@ $103.86 · 2026-02-12
BUNGE JASON M
Officer
$252,342
@ $106.03 · 2026-02-12
COCHRAN HOPE F
Director
$308,972
@ $77.24 · 2025-11-10
THOMSON ROBERTA KELLY
Officer
$202,825
@ $81.13 · 2025-08-28
KILPIN TIMOTHY J
Officer
$696,882
@ $81.44 · 2025-08-27
COCKS CHRISTIAN P
Chief Executive Officer
$2.19M
@ $78.92 · 2025-08-21
THOMSON ROBERTA KELLY
Officer
$79,971
@ $79.81 · 2025-08-14
AUSTIN MATTHEW EDWARD
Officer
$111,782
@ $65.07 · 2024-11-29
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
INTC
0
Sells (3M)
3
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $7.47M
CHANDRASEKARAN NAGASUBRAMANIYAN
Chief Technology Officer
$2.49M
@ $118.28 · 2026-05-29
MILLER BOISE APRIL
Officer
$4.01M
@ $99.53 · 2026-05-01
MILLER BOISE APRIL
Officer
$981,000
@ $49.05 · 2026-02-02
HOLTHAUS MICHELLE JOHNSTON
General Counsel
$650,000
@ $26.00 · 2024-11-07
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 →
HAS
FearGreed
😏Greed(69/100)

"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.
INTC
FearGreed
😨Fear(26/100)

"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 →
HAS
⚪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 (69)
INTC
⚪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 (26)
View HAS Full AnalysisView INTC Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: HAS vs INTC

Is Hasbro, Inc. or Intel Corporation more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, HAS trades at a -68.4% margin of safety (intrinsic value $71 vs. price $119), compared to INTC's -696.5% margin of safety (intrinsic $8 vs. $66).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Hasbro, Inc. or Intel Corporation?▼

HAS scores 40/100 (Narrow moat), while INTC scores 17/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Intel Corporation in financial distress?▼

INTC's Altman Z-Score of 2.1 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. HAS scores 3.4 (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 company has better free cash flow, Hasbro, Inc. or Intel Corporation?▼

Hasbro, Inc. (HAS) generates a 4.8% free cash flow yield, compared to Intel Corporation's 0.2%. 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, Hasbro, Inc. or Intel Corporation?▼

HAS earns 27.7% ROIC versus INTC's 4.1%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

HAS vs INTC: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io