Compare StocksINTU vs LVS

Intuit Inc. (INTU) vs Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, INTU is undervalued at $267, with a DCF intrinsic value of $536 and a margin of safety of 50%. LVS is fairly valued at $49, with an intrinsic value of $49 and a margin of safety of 1%. Of the two, INTU has the wider margin of safety.

INTU
Intuit Inc.
$267.00
VS
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
$48.72

Rewards

INTU
  • Gross margin of 80.8% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Intuit Inc. scores 79/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 18.5% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
LVS
  • Gross margin of 80.1% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Return on equity has consistently exceeded 20% over 4 years, indicating efficient use of shareholder capital.
  • Share count has been reduced by 12% over the past 4 years through buybacks, increasing each share's claim on earnings.

Risks

INTU
  • FCF yield of 7.2% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
LVS
  • FCF yield of 5.0% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • High leverage (7.74x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • 18 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
INTU
LVS
Valuation
$5.23B
Free Cash Flow
$1.62B
7.16%
FCF Yield
5.03%
16.30
Trailing P/E
17.98
9.77
Forward P/E
13.26
Quality & Moat
28.21%
ROIC
15.88%
22.50%
ROE
90.45%
80.79%
Gross Margin
80.09%
0.73
PEG Ratio
0.99
Balance Sheet Safety
0.01
Net Debt / Equity
7.74
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
0.02
Net Debt / EBITDA
2.58
1.71%
Dividend Yield
2.25%
INTU: 8Ties: 2LVS: 2
INTULVS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
INTU

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.

LVS

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 →
INTU
$12.31
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$6.10B
Δ Market Cap
+$75.17B
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
LVS
$2.81
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$2.57B
Δ Market Cap
+$7.20B
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 →
INTU
50.2% Margin of Safety
Price is 50.2% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $267.00
Fair Value: $535.61
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
LVS
1.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 1.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $48.72
Fair Value: $49.35
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
INTU

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $267?

+4.7%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +2.8%

The market implies +4.7% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +2.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

LVS

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $49?

+9.8%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +12.1%

The market implies +9.8% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +12.1%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
INTU
79/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. ROIC Consistency is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.

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.
LVS
38/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable moat detected, though roic consistency 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 →
INTU
-2.65
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.
LVS
-2.17
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.

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 →
INTU
Insiders 2.4%Institutions 92.3%Retail & Other 5.4%
No. of Institutional Holders2,820
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.
LVS
Insiders 58.5%Institutions 42.2%
No. of Institutional Holders1,083
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 →
INTU
1
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $541,665
PRABHU VASANT M.
Director
$541,665
@ $309.52 · 2026-05-26
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
LVS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
PANT MUKTESH
Director
$1.00M
@ $43.51 · 2025-03-14
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 →
INTU
1
Sells (3M)
16
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $11.47M
DALZELL RICHARD L
Director
$289,448
@ $288.29 · 2026-06-11
DALZELL RICHARD L
Director
$457,046
@ $457.50 · 2026-03-12
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$840,097
@ $629.76 · 2026-01-05
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$741,172
@ $675.02 · 2025-12-19
DALZELL RICHARD L
Director
$219,763
@ $659.95 · 2025-12-11
DALZELL RICHARD L
Director
$435,354
@ $653.68 · 2025-12-10
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$792,160
@ $677.06 · 2025-10-03
DALZELL RICHARD L
Director
$665,951
@ $666.62 · 2025-09-11
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$27,930
@ $665.00 · 2025-08-25
DALZELL RICHARD L
Director
$255,887
@ $768.43 · 2025-07-10
DALZELL RICHARD L
Director
$521,891
@ $783.62 · 2025-07-09
BALAZS ALEX G
Chief Technology Officer
$689,400
@ $782.52 · 2025-07-08
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$2.03M
@ $782.22 · 2025-07-03
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$1.25M
@ $773.90 · 2025-07-02
NOTARAINNI MARK PHILLIP
Officer
$887,583
@ $774.51 · 2025-07-02
HOTZ LAUREN DALE
Officer
$1.36M
@ $784.24 · 2025-06-27
BALAZS ALEX G
Chief Technology Officer
$1.12M
@ $771.24 · 2025-06-05
TESSEL MARIANNA
Officer
$26.12M
@ $760.84 · 2025-06-03
FENNELL LAURA A
Officer
$19.29M
@ $752.25 · 2025-05-29
FENNELL LAURA A
Officer
$30.46M
@ $738.61 · 2025-05-28
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$11.66M
@ $726.15 · 2025-05-27
NOTARAINNI MARK PHILLIP
Officer
$340,143
@ $725.25 · 2025-05-27
MCLEAN KERRY JEAN
General Counsel
$12.18M
@ $729.16 · 2025-05-27
FENNELL LAURA A
Officer
$5.00M
@ $612.45 · 2025-03-24
TESSEL MARIANNA
Officer
$4.43M
@ $600.13 · 2025-03-21
BURTON EVE B
Director
$1.02M
@ $600.00 · 2025-03-20
HOTZ LAUREN DALE
Officer
$667,838
@ $619.52 · 2025-01-10
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$814,350
@ $626.42 · 2025-01-08
FENNELL LAURA A
Officer
$2.94M
@ $613.70 · 2025-01-07
AUJLA SANDEEP S
Chief Financial Officer
$68,506
@ $628.50 · 2025-01-03
NOTARAINNI MARK PHILLIP
Officer
$228,121
@ $630.17 · 2025-01-03
BALAZS ALEX G
Chief Technology Officer
$15.86M
@ $665.98 · 2024-12-12
FENNELL LAURA A
Officer
$5.06M
@ $657.64 · 2024-12-10
MCLEAN KERRY JEAN
General Counsel
$11.16M
@ $650.78 · 2024-12-09
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
LVS
1
Sells (3M)
18
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $333.60M
FORMAN CHARLES D
Director
$616,626
@ $54.09 · 2026-04-27
DUMONT PATRICK
Chief Executive Officer
$3.29M
@ $54.75 · 2026-03-17
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$83.39M
@ $66.71 · 2025-12-17
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$50.09M
@ $66.79 · 2025-12-15
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$26.57M
@ $66.42 · 2025-12-11
DUMONT PATRICK
President
$9.22M
@ $67.96 · 2025-12-03
DUMONT PATRICK
President
$15.91M
@ $69.88 · 2025-12-02
HUDSON D. ZACHARY
Officer
$3.75M
@ $70.37 · 2025-12-01
CHAFETZ IRWIN
Director
$2.09M
@ $69.76 · 2025-12-01
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$7.02M
@ $70.17 · 2025-12-01
HYZAK RANDY A.
Chief Financial Officer
$3.82M
@ $66.45 · 2025-11-25
HUDSON D. ZACHARY
Officer
$6.50M
@ $64.99 · 2025-11-07
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$25.22M
@ $63.04 · 2025-11-06
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$23.68M
@ $59.20 · 2025-10-31
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$53.02M
@ $58.92 · 2025-10-30
GOLDSTEIN ROBERT G
Chief Executive Officer
$17.80M
@ $59.32 · 2025-10-27
FORMAN CHARLES D
Director
$1.08M
@ $54.13 · 2025-09-10
FORMAN CHARLES D
Director
$526,300
@ $52.63 · 2025-08-06
HUDSON D. ZACHARY
Officer
$1.33M
@ $51.40 · 2024-11-27
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 →
INTU
FearGreed
😨Fear(25/100)

"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.
LVS
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 →
INTU
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 (25)
LVS
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 INTU Full AnalysisView LVS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: INTU vs LVS

Is Intuit Inc. or Las Vegas Sands Corp. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, INTU trades at a 50.2% margin of safety (intrinsic value $536 vs. price $267), compared to LVS's 1.3% margin of safety (intrinsic $49 vs. $49).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Intuit Inc. or Las Vegas Sands Corp.?

INTU scores 79/100 (Wide moat), while LVS scores 38/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Las Vegas Sands Corp. in financial distress?

LVS's Altman Z-Score of 2.7 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. INTU scores 8.3 (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, Intuit Inc. or Las Vegas Sands Corp.?

Intuit Inc. (INTU) generates a 7.2% free cash flow yield, compared to Las Vegas Sands Corp.'s 5.0%. 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, Intuit Inc. or Las Vegas Sands Corp.?

INTU earns 28.2% ROIC versus LVS's 15.9%. 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, Intuit Inc.'s or Las Vegas Sands Corp.'s?

INTU's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to LVS's 81/100 (Very Safe). INTU has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.