Compare StocksINVH vs TSLA

Invitation Homes Inc. (INVH) vs Tesla, Inc. (TSLA): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, INVH is overvalued at $28, with a DCF intrinsic value of $24 and a margin of safety of -16%. TSLA is overvalued at $400, with an intrinsic value of $131 and a margin of safety of -206%. Of the two, INVH has the wider margin of safety.

INVH
Invitation Homes Inc.
$28.41
VS
TSLA
Tesla, Inc.
$400.49

Rewards

INVH
  • Trailing P/E of 29.9x is 25% below the historical average of 39.8x — potentially undervalued relative to its own history.
TSLA
  • Altman Z-Score of 19.94 indicates very low bankruptcy risk — the company is firmly in the safe zone.
  • Net debt/EBITDA of -2.6x means the company holds more cash than debt — a net cash position.

Risks

INVH
  • FCF yield of 6.1% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • PEG ratio of 13.14 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • Net debt/EBITDA of 5.8x indicates heavy leverage — it would take over 4 years of EBITDA to pay off net debt.
TSLA
  • ROIC has declined by 21.5 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
  • Gross margin of 19.1% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • Share count has increased by 19% over the past 4 years, diluting existing shareholders.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
INVH
TSLA
Valuation
$1.02B
Free Cash Flow
$5.25B
6.05%
FCF Yield
0.35%
29.91
Trailing P/E
367.42
42.77
Forward P/E
160.20
Quality & Moat
2.96%
ROIC
3.23%
6.19%
ROE
4.90%
57.18%
Gross Margin
19.06%
13.14
PEG Ratio
5.78
Balance Sheet Safety
0.96
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
5.84
Net Debt / EBITDA
-2.60
4.14%
Dividend Yield
0.00%
INVH: 6Ties: 1TSLA: 5
INVHTSLA

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
INVH

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.

TSLA

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 →
INVH
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-478.9M
Δ Market Cap
$-1.15B
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
TSLA
$50.04
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$25.92B
Δ Market Cap
+$1.30T
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 →
INVH
16.3% Overvalued
Price is 16.3% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $28.41
Fair Value: $24.44
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TSLA
626.9% Overvalued
Price is 626.9% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $400.49
Fair Value: $55.09
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
INVH

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $28?

+9.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +10.8%

The market implies +9.9% Owner Earnings growth, roughly in line with history — reasonably priced.

Standard FCF implies +10.8%, reflecting ongoing growth investment.

TSLA

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $400?

+50.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +45.1%

The market implies +50.2% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +45.1%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
INVH
63/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with revenue predictability as the key competitive advantage. Improving roic consistency 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 4 years of fundamental data.
TSLA
31/100
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 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
INVH
-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.
TSLA
-2.86
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 →
INVH
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 103.0%
No. of Institutional Holders904
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.
TSLA
Insiders 11.1%Institutions 44.9%Retail & Other 44.0%
No. of Institutional Holders5,237
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 →
INVH
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
TSLA
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $999.96M
MUSK ELON REEVE
Chief Executive Officer
$999.96M
@ $389.28 · 2025-09-12
GEBBIA JOSEPH
Director
$1.03M
@ $256.31 · 2025-04-24
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 →
INVH
0
Sells (3M)
0
Sells (12M)
TANNER DALLAS BRADFORD
Chief Executive Officer
$4.97M
@ $33.41 · 2025-06-13
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TSLA
4
Sells (3M)
10
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $62.72M
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.05M
@ $402.27 · 2026-06-08
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.35M
@ $450.00 · 2026-05-13
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$9.99M
@ $378.11 · 2026-04-30
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$9.27M
@ $359.33 · 2026-03-30
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$899,077
@ $397.12 · 2026-03-06
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$10.69M
@ $415.56 · 2026-02-25
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$25.61M
@ $450.66 · 2025-12-09
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.17M
@ $443.93 · 2025-12-08
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$918,137
@ $352.45 · 2025-09-08
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.77M
@ $295.26 · 2025-07-08
ZHU XIAOTONG
Officer
$4.86M
@ $323.81 · 2025-06-12
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$732,573
@ $285.71 · 2025-06-09
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.40M
@ $342.30 · 2025-06-03
EHRENPREIS IRA MATTHEW
Director
$170.64M
@ $357.30 · 2025-05-27
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$32.73M
@ $357.39 · 2025-05-27
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.05M
@ $350.11 · 2025-05-16
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.20M
@ $300.00 · 2025-05-09
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$30.81M
@ $274.12 · 2025-05-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.14M
@ $284.40 · 2025-05-01
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$32.10M
@ $285.58 · 2025-04-29
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.00M
@ $250.00 · 2025-04-07
MURDOCH JAMES RUPERT
Director
$13.19M
@ $240.79 · 2025-03-10
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$718,111
@ $268.75 · 2025-03-06
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$33.67M
@ $299.61 · 2025-03-03
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.78M
@ $296.02 · 2025-03-03
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$27.59M
@ $367.87 · 2025-02-06
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$43.16M
@ $384.04 · 2025-02-03
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.68M
@ $383.11 · 2025-02-03
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$41.16M
@ $411.63 · 2025-01-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.89M
@ $413.56 · 2025-01-06
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$975,015
@ $374.29 · 2024-12-06
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$35.25M
@ $352.54 · 2024-12-04
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$39.79M
@ $354.06 · 2024-12-02
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.48M
@ $354.43 · 2024-12-02
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$35.34M
@ $314.44 · 2024-11-15
WILSON - THOMPSON KATHLEEN
Director
$34.60M
@ $346.02 · 2024-11-11
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$3.80M
@ $316.91 · 2024-11-11
MUSK KIMBAL J
Director
$15.14M
@ $250.23 · 2024-11-01
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.01M
@ $251.76 · 2024-11-01
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$1.00M
@ $250.00 · 2024-10-24
TANEJA VAIBHAV
Chief Financial Officer
$2.00M
@ $250.00 · 2024-09-23
ZHU XIAOTONG
Officer
$65,867
@ $221.77 · 2024-09-06
DENHOLM ROBYN M
Director
$14.60M
@ $219.96 · 2024-07-25
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 →
INVH
FearGreed
😐Neutral(44/100)

"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.
TSLA
FearGreed
😐Neutral(45/100)

"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 →
INVH
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 (44)
TSLA
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 (45)
View INVH Full AnalysisView TSLA Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: INVH vs TSLA

Is Invitation Homes Inc. or Tesla, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, INVH trades at a -16.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $24 vs. price $28), compared to TSLA's -206.1% margin of safety (intrinsic $131 vs. $400).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Invitation Homes Inc. or Tesla, Inc.?

INVH scores 63/100 (Narrow moat), while TSLA scores 31/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Invitation Homes Inc. in financial distress?

INVH's Altman Z-Score of 1.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. TSLA scores 19.9 (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, Invitation Homes Inc. or Tesla, Inc.?

Invitation Homes Inc. (INVH) generates a 6.1% free cash flow yield, compared to Tesla, Inc.'s 0.3%. 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, Invitation Homes Inc. or Tesla, Inc.?

TSLA earns 3.2% ROIC versus INVH's 3.0%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

INVH vs TSLA: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io