Compare StocksINTU vs WM

Intuit Inc. (INTU) vs Waste Management, Inc. (WM): 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%. WM is overvalued at $215, with an intrinsic value of $137 and a margin of safety of -57%. Of the two, INTU has the wider margin of safety.

INTU
Intuit Inc.
$267.00
VS
WM
Waste Management, Inc.
$214.60

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.
WM
  • Waste Management, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
  • Waste Management, Inc. scores 81/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with margin stability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 13.1% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.

Risks

INTU
  • FCF yield of 7.2% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
WM
  • PEG ratio of 2.23 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • High leverage (2.27x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
INTU
WM
Valuation
$5.23B
Free Cash Flow
$2.82B
7.16%
FCF Yield
3.27%
16.30
Trailing P/E
31.06
9.77
Forward P/E
23.21
Quality & Moat
28.21%
ROIC
10.69%
22.50%
ROE
29.94%
80.79%
Gross Margin
40.61%
0.73
PEG Ratio
2.23
Balance Sheet Safety
0.01
Net Debt / Equity
2.27
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
0.02
Net Debt / EBITDA
2.97
1.71%
Dividend Yield
1.62%
INTU: 10Ties: 1WM: 1
INTUWM

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.

WM

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
WM
$6.02
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$4.08B
Δ Market Cap
+$24.54B
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
WM
56.7% Overvalued
Price is 56.7% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $214.60
Fair Value: $136.97
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.

WM

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $215?

+17.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +16.7%

The market implies +17.2% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +16.7%, 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.
WM
81/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by margin stability. Reinvestment Efficiency 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.

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.
WM
-2.80
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.
WM
Insiders 0.2%Institutions 86.2%Retail & Other 13.5%
No. of Institutional Holders3,096
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
WM
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $392,840
MENKE SEAN EDWARD
Director
$392,840
@ $196.42 · 2025-11-03
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
WM
1
Sells (3M)
31
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $23.95M
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$585,335
@ $220.47 · 2026-06-05
CARROLL JOHN A
Officer
$11,529
@ $245.30 · 2026-03-09
DESANTIS CHRISTOPHER P
Officer
$14,976
@ $245.51 · 2026-03-09
VARKEY JOHNSON
Chief Technology Officer
$29,677
@ $245.26 · 2026-03-09
REED DAVID L.
Chief Financial Officer
$18,394
@ $245.25 · 2026-03-09
MORRIS JOHN J JR.
President
$1.02M
@ $243.38 · 2026-03-09
MORRIS JOHN J JR.
President
$1.96M
@ $245.07 · 2026-03-06
VARKEY JOHNSON
Chief Technology Officer
$150,628
@ $244.13 · 2026-03-03
HEMMER TARA J
Officer
$1.17M
@ $241.83 · 2026-03-02
WATSON MICHAEL J.
Officer
$4.17M
@ $241.81 · 2026-03-02
STITH KIMBERLY G.
Officer
$5,106
@ $243.14 · 2026-03-02
REED DAVID L.
Chief Financial Officer
$5,096
@ $242.67 · 2026-03-02
CARROLL JOHN A
Officer
$8,491
@ $229.49 · 2026-02-26
REED DAVID L.
Chief Financial Officer
$8,498
@ $229.68 · 2026-02-26
SMITH DONALD J
Officer
$2.85M
@ $233.48 · 2026-02-17
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$1.72M
@ $234.50 · 2026-02-13
CARROLL JOHN A
Officer
$239,634
@ $234.71 · 2026-02-11
FISH JAMES C JR
Chief Executive Officer
$8.47M
@ $230.43 · 2026-02-10
SMITH DONALD J
Officer
$151,514
@ $219.59 · 2026-01-30
CARROLL JOHN A
Officer
$48,306
@ $219.57 · 2026-01-30
DESANTIS CHRISTOPHER P
Officer
$47,053
@ $218.85 · 2026-01-30
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$151,114
@ $219.01 · 2026-01-30
HEMMER TARA J
Officer
$151,596
@ $219.70 · 2026-01-30
WATSON MICHAEL J.
Officer
$150,996
@ $219.79 · 2026-01-30
VARKEY JOHNSON
Chief Technology Officer
$94,004
@ $219.64 · 2026-01-30
STITH KIMBERLY G.
Officer
$34,485
@ $219.65 · 2026-01-30
REED DAVID L.
Chief Financial Officer
$59,028
@ $218.62 · 2026-01-30
BOETTCHER CHARLES C
Officer
$151,111
@ $219.32 · 2026-01-30
MORRIS JOHN J JR.
President
$151,445
@ $219.49 · 2026-01-30
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$299,543
@ $217.06 · 2025-11-20
STITH KIMBERLY G.
Officer
$22,520
@ $225.20 · 2025-09-04
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$465,840
@ $240.00 · 2025-05-30
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$159,610
@ $236.81 · 2025-05-27
RANKIN DEVINA A
Chief Financial Officer
$13.74M
@ $237.36 · 2025-05-27
MORRIS JOHN J JR.
Chief Operating Officer
$5.55M
@ $233.32 · 2025-05-02
CARROLL JOHN A
Officer
$282,626
@ $225.92 · 2025-03-07
MORRIS JOHN J JR.
Chief Operating Officer
$4.30M
@ $224.71 · 2025-03-07
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$212,540
@ $229.03 · 2025-03-06
HEMMER TARA J
Officer
$705,772
@ $228.11 · 2025-03-05
WATSON MICHAEL J.
Officer
$352,886
@ $228.11 · 2025-03-05
RANKIN DEVINA A
Chief Financial Officer
$941,182
@ $228.11 · 2025-03-05
SMITH DONALD J
Officer
$10,097
@ $234.81 · 2025-03-03
CARROLL JOHN A
Officer
$11,034
@ $234.77 · 2025-03-03
DESANTIS CHRISTOPHER P
Officer
$10,567
@ $234.82 · 2025-03-03
VARKEY JOHNSON
Chief Technology Officer
$29,134
@ $234.95 · 2025-03-03
STITH KIMBERLY G.
Officer
$14,556
@ $234.77 · 2025-03-03
WATSON MICHAEL J.
Officer
$1.30M
@ $227.51 · 2025-02-24
FISH JAMES C JR
Chief Executive Officer
$10.14M
@ $228.43 · 2025-02-24
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$903,562
@ $225.89 · 2025-02-07
VARKEY JOHNSON
Officer
$70,892
@ $222.93 · 2025-02-04
HEMMER TARA J
Officer
$1.02M
@ $222.12 · 2025-02-04
RANKIN DEVINA A
Chief Financial Officer
$1.29M
@ $222.12 · 2025-02-04
SMITH DONALD J
Officer
$42,062
@ $220.22 · 2025-01-31
CARROLL JOHN A
Officer
$46,095
@ $220.55 · 2025-01-31
DESANTIS CHRISTOPHER P
Officer
$44,072
@ $220.36 · 2025-01-31
VARKEY JOHNSON
Chief Technology Officer
$123,260
@ $220.11 · 2025-01-31
CARRASCO RAFAEL
Officer
$152,758
@ $220.43 · 2025-01-31
HEMMER TARA J
Officer
$152,744
@ $220.41 · 2025-01-31
WATSON MICHAEL J.
Officer
$152,630
@ $220.25 · 2025-01-31
STITH KIMBERLY G.
Officer
$41,147
@ $220.04 · 2025-01-31
BOETTCHER CHARLES C
Officer
$152,870
@ $220.59 · 2025-01-31
RANKIN DEVINA A
Chief Financial Officer
$152,855
@ $220.57 · 2025-01-31
MORRIS JOHN J JR.
Chief Operating Officer
$152,869
@ $220.59 · 2025-01-31
SYLVESTER MARYROSE T
Director
$66,796
@ $215.47 · 2024-11-05
WATSON MICHAEL J.
Officer
$330,000
@ $220.00 · 2024-07-16
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.
WM
FearGreed
😐Neutral(54/100)

"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)
WM
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 (54)
View INTU Full AnalysisView WM Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: INTU vs WM

Is Intuit Inc. or Waste Management, Inc. 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 WM's -56.7% margin of safety (intrinsic $137 vs. $215).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Intuit Inc. or Waste Management, Inc.?

WM scores 81/100 (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.

Is Waste Management, Inc. in financial distress?

WM's Altman Z-Score of 2.9 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 Waste Management, Inc.?

Intuit Inc. (INTU) generates a 7.2% free cash flow yield, compared to Waste Management, Inc.'s 3.3%. 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 Waste Management, Inc.?

INTU earns 28.2% ROIC versus WM's 10.7%. 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 Waste Management, Inc.'s?

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