Intel Corporation (INTC) vs Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZBRA): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?
As of 2026-11-01, INTC is overvalued at $66, with a DCF intrinsic value of $8 and a margin of safety of -697%. ZBRA is overvalued at $361, with an intrinsic value of $151 and a margin of safety of -139%. Of the two, ZBRA has the wider margin of safety.
Rewards
- ★Net debt/EBITDA of -0.2x means the company holds more cash than debt — a net cash position.
- ★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.
- ★PEG ratio of 0.58 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.
Risks
- ⚠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.
- ⚠ROIC has declined by 6.6 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
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 →What growth rate is the market pricing in at $66?
Market pricing in significantly higher growth than history — aggressive.
What growth rate is the market pricing in at $361?
The market implies +16.6% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.
Standard FCF implies a demanding +10.2%, reflecting heavy growth investment.
Economic Moat Score
Learn more →No durable moat detected, though revenue predictability shows some competitive positioning. The business lacks consistent evidence of sustainable advantages.
Wide moat driven primarily by roic consistency. Revenue Predictability is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.
Forensic Accounting
Learn more →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 pessimistic — investigate whether fears are temporary or structural"
"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"
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: INTC vs ZBRA
Is Intel Corporation or Zebra Technologies Corporation more undervalued in 2026?▼
Based on our discounted cash flow model, ZBRA trades at a -139.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $151 vs. price $361), compared to INTC's -696.5% margin of safety (intrinsic $8 vs. $66).
Which stock has a wider economic moat, Intel Corporation or Zebra Technologies Corporation?▼
ZBRA scores 74/100 (Wide 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. 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 company has better free cash flow, Intel Corporation or Zebra Technologies Corporation?▼
Zebra Technologies Corporation (ZBRA) generates a 4.9% 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, Intel Corporation or Zebra Technologies Corporation?▼
ZBRA earns 15.4% 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.