Compare StocksINTU vs PG

Intuit Inc. (INTU) vs The Procter & Gamble Company (PG): 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%. PG is overvalued at $150, with an intrinsic value of $100 and a margin of safety of -50%. Of the two, INTU has the wider margin of safety.

INTU
Intuit Inc.
$267.00
VS
PG
The Procter & Gamble Company
$150.38

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.
PG
  • The Procter & Gamble Company has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • The Procter & Gamble Company scores 94/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Return on equity has consistently exceeded 20% over 4 years, indicating efficient use of shareholder capital.

Risks

INTU
  • FCF yield of 7.2% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
PG
  • PEG ratio of 4.28 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • 28 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
INTU
PG
Valuation
$5.23B
Free Cash Flow
$12.73B
7.16%
FCF Yield
3.64%
16.30
Trailing P/E
21.95
9.77
Forward P/E
21.19
Quality & Moat
28.21%
ROIC
17.21%
22.50%
ROE
31.11%
80.79%
Gross Margin
50.98%
0.73
PEG Ratio
4.28
Balance Sheet Safety
0.01
Net Debt / Equity
0.45
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
0.02
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.99
1.71%
Dividend Yield
2.81%
INTU: 8Ties: 1PG: 3
INTUPG

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.

PG

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
PG
$-1.57
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$17.32B
Δ Market Cap
$-27.18B
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
PG
50.0% Overvalued
Price is 50.0% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $150.38
Fair Value: $100.24
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.

PG

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $150?

+9.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +13.0%

The market implies +9.9% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +13.0%, 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.
PG
94/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. Revenue Predictability is the standout factor.

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.
PG
-2.54
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.

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.
PG
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 71.9%Retail & Other 28.0%
No. of Institutional Holders5,034
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
PG
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
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
PG
0
Sells (3M)
28
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $78.99M
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$917,199
@ $165.29 · 2026-02-27
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$288,454
@ $159.45 · 2026-02-19
AGUILAR MOSES VICTOR JAVIER
Officer
$2.46M
@ $162.28 · 2026-02-13
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$5.86M
@ $162.33 · 2026-02-12
MOELLER JON R
Officer and Director
$28.12M
@ $162.29 · 2026-02-12
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$2.06M
@ $160.31 · 2026-02-11
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$1.26M
@ $158.00 · 2026-02-04
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$14.50M
@ $151.15 · 2026-01-23
JANZARUK MATTHEW W.
Officer
$108,438
@ $149.57 · 2025-10-30
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$366,574
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$74,594
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
SCHULTEN ANDRE
Chief Financial Officer
$647,289
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$491,252
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
JEJURIKAR SHAILESH
Chief Operating Officer
$606,796
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$538,139
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
MOELLER JON R
Chief Executive Officer
$1.78M
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$156,835
@ $156.84 · 2025-08-29
RAMAN SUNDAR G.
Officer
$1.51M
@ $158.16 · 2025-08-21
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$1.61M
@ $158.16 · 2025-08-21
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$969,908
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$95,308
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
SCHULTEN ANDRE
Chief Financial Officer
$1.83M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
JANZARUK MATTHEW W.
Officer
$50,170
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$1.35M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$1.43M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
JEJURIKAR SHAILESH
Chief Operating Officer
$2.05M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
MOELLER JON R
Chief Executive Officer
$6.31M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$1.55M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
AGUILAR MOSES VICTOR JAVIER
Officer
$1.67M
@ $158.67 · 2025-05-05
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$161,384
@ $161.38 · 2025-04-29
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$6.08M
@ $173.68 · 2025-02-28
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$3.09M
@ $171.66 · 2025-02-25
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$14.82M
@ $163.84 · 2025-01-23
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.
PG
FearGreed
😐Neutral(59/100)

"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 →
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)
PG
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 (59)
View INTU Full AnalysisView PG Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: INTU vs PG

Is Intuit Inc. or The Procter & Gamble Company 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 PG's -50.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $100 vs. $150).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Intuit Inc. or The Procter & Gamble Company?

PG scores 94/100 (Wide moat), while INTU scores 79/100 (Wide moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Which company has better free cash flow, Intuit Inc. or The Procter & Gamble Company?

Intuit Inc. (INTU) generates a 7.2% free cash flow yield, compared to The Procter & Gamble Company's 3.6%. 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 The Procter & Gamble Company?

INTU earns 28.2% ROIC versus PG's 17.2%. 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 The Procter & Gamble Company's?

INTU's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to PG's 69/100 (Safe). INTU has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.