Compare StocksLII vs V

Lennox International, Inc. (LII) vs Visa Inc. (V): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, LII is undervalued at $416, with a DCF intrinsic value of $557 and a margin of safety of 25%. V is overvalued at $366, with an intrinsic value of $311 and a margin of safety of -18%. Of the two, LII has the wider margin of safety.

LII
Lennox International, Inc.
$415.88
VS
V
Visa Inc.
$366.13

Rewards

LII
  • Lennox International, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Lennox International, Inc. scores 74/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with reinvestment efficiency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 47.0% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
V
  • Visa Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Gross margin of 97.7% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Visa Inc. scores 99/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.

Risks

LII
  • High leverage (1.52x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • Beneish M-Score of -1.37 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.
  • 8 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.
V
  • FCF yield of 3.0% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Insiders have sold $14.9M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
LII
V
Valuation
$638.80M
Free Cash Flow
$20.40B
4.44%
FCF Yield
2.98%
18.48
Trailing P/E
31.16
15.80
Forward P/E
24.49
Quality & Moat
28.82%
ROIC
39.37%
71.76%
ROE
61.19%
33.33%
Gross Margin
97.72%
1.25
PEG Ratio
1.66
Balance Sheet Safety
1.52
Net Debt / Equity
0.29
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
1.68
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.32
1.31%
Dividend Yield
0.73%
LII: 6Ties: 1V: 5
LIIV

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
LII

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.

V

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 →
LII
$4.89
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$1.72B
Δ Market Cap
+$8.41B
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
V
$5.47
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$44.47B
Δ Market Cap
+$243.21B
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 →
LII
25.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 25.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $415.88
Fair Value: $556.65
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
V
17.6% Overvalued
Price is 17.6% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $366.13
Fair Value: $311.46
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
LII

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $416?

+7.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +11.1%

The market implies +7.9% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +11.1%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

V

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $366?

+15.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +14.9%

The market implies +15.2% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +14.9%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
LII
74/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by reinvestment efficiency. Margin Stability 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.
V
99/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. ROIC Consistency 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 →
LII
-1.37
Likely 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.
V
-2.50
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 →
LII
Insiders 9.6%Institutions 79.9%Retail & Other 10.5%
No. of Institutional Holders946
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.
V
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 89.4%Retail & Other 10.5%
No. of Institutional Holders5,880
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 →
LII
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
V
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 →
LII
1
Sells (3M)
8
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $2.45M
KOSEL CHRIS A
Officer
$529,001
@ $544.80 · 2026-05-06
WALL SHANE D.
Director
$54,001
@ $540.01 · 2026-02-25
KOSEL CHRIS A
Officer
$136,271
@ $536.50 · 2026-02-04
TESKE TODD J
Director
$373,415
@ $533.45 · 2026-02-04
TESKE TODD J
Director
$295,110
@ $491.85 · 2025-11-11
KOSEL CHRIS A
Officer
$177,558
@ $591.86 · 2025-08-22
QUINTOS KAREN H.
Director
$657,665
@ $607.82 · 2025-08-20
QUINTOS KAREN H.
Director
$222,394
@ $609.30 · 2025-08-20
SESSA DANIEL M
Officer
$1.86M
@ $670.04 · 2025-07-23
NORRIS JOHN W III
Director
$14.88M
@ $666.20 · 2025-07-23
NORRIS JOHN W III
Director
$1.96M
@ $613.72 · 2025-07-10
NORRIS JOHN W III
Director
$1.93M
@ $606.00 · 2025-07-03
NORRIS JOHN W III
Director
$1.91M
@ $600.00 · 2025-07-01
KOSEL CHRIS A
Officer
$289,140
@ $568.06 · 2025-05-07
KOSEL CHRIS A
Officer
$124,975
@ $644.20 · 2025-02-21
TORRES JOHN D
Officer
$1.04M
@ $582.55 · 2025-02-04
BUCK SHERRY L
Director
$330,370
@ $660.74 · 2024-11-27
TESKE TODD J
Director
$337,760
@ $675.52 · 2024-11-25
KOSEL CHRIS A
Officer
$125,098
@ $625.49 · 2024-11-13
BEDAPUDI PRAKASH
Chief Technology Officer
$596,370
@ $618.00 · 2024-11-05
NASSAB JOSEPH
Officer
$398,091
@ $619.12 · 2024-11-05
WALL SHANE D.
Director
$199,215
@ $612.97 · 2024-10-28
TORRES JOHN D
Officer
$360,789
@ $620.98 · 2024-10-25
BEDAPUDI PRAKASH
Chief Technology Officer
$3.14M
@ $584.00 · 2024-08-28
BUCK SHERRY L
Director
$291,735
@ $583.47 · 2024-08-23
QUINTOS KAREN H.
Director
$1.02M
@ $574.87 · 2024-08-20
NORRIS JOHN W III
Director
$976,412
@ $574.36 · 2024-08-20
BEDAPUDI PRAKASH
Chief Technology Officer
$1.98M
@ $578.00 · 2024-08-19
BEDARD GARY S
Officer
$685,351
@ $576.41 · 2024-08-19
WALL SHANE D.
Director
$201,831
@ $576.66 · 2024-08-19
TESKE TODD J
Director
$1.15M
@ $574.05 · 2024-08-19
SESSA DANIEL M
Officer
$7.68M
@ $570.97 · 2024-08-16
TORRES JOHN D
Officer
$4.12M
@ $571.21 · 2024-08-16
NASSAB JOSEPH
Officer
$664,195
@ $570.12 · 2024-08-16
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
V
4
Sells (3M)
19
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $62.30M
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$729,720
@ $360.00 · 2026-07-02
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.61M
@ $343.99 · 2026-07-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$7.13M
@ $340.25 · 2026-06-29
SUH CHRIS
Chief Financial Officer
$3.46M
@ $324.81 · 2026-05-12
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$10.70M
@ $340.14 · 2026-04-29
CARNEY LLOYD
Director
$201,253
@ $309.62 · 2026-03-11
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.66M
@ $349.18 · 2026-01-02
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.57M
@ $340.07 · 2025-12-11
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$699,315
@ $345.00 · 2025-12-11
TANEJA RAJAT
Officer
$7.84M
@ $330.14 · 2025-12-02
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$2.50M
@ $331.45 · 2025-12-02
TANEJA RAJAT
Officer
$2.08M
@ $330.00 · 2025-11-21
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$707,917
@ $325.93 · 2025-11-21
CARNEY LLOYD
Director
$302,832
@ $336.48 · 2025-11-04
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.58M
@ $341.00 · 2025-11-03
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.59M
@ $342.30 · 2025-10-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.65M
@ $348.57 · 2025-09-02
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$697,329
@ $344.02 · 2025-08-18
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.60M
@ $343.13 · 2025-08-14
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.05M
@ $353.82 · 2025-07-01
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$4.36M
@ $375.00 · 2025-06-11
TANEJA RAJAT
President
$18.44M
@ $368.87 · 2025-06-05
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$17.10M
@ $370.00 · 2025-06-05
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.13M
@ $362.77 · 2025-06-02
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$6.32M
@ $357.45 · 2025-05-12
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$5.26M
@ $355.04 · 2025-05-08
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.98M
@ $345.58 · 2025-05-01
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$889,868
@ $345.58 · 2025-05-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.02M
@ $350.44 · 2025-04-01
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$13.40M
@ $340.41 · 2025-03-19
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$12.88M
@ $327.20 · 2025-03-14
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$3.13M
@ $363.00 · 2025-03-03
MAHON TULLIER KELLY
Officer
$11.80M
@ $349.77 · 2025-02-07
ANDRESKI PETER M
Officer
$815,314
@ $349.62 · 2025-02-07
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.93M
@ $340.00 · 2025-02-03
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$874,480
@ $340.00 · 2025-02-03
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.74M
@ $317.78 · 2025-01-02
TANEJA RAJAT
Officer
$11.15M
@ $315.55 · 2024-12-13
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.73M
@ $316.90 · 2024-12-02
FABARA PAUL D
Officer
$668,603
@ $307.97 · 2024-11-22
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.49M
@ $288.49 · 2024-11-01
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$741,996
@ $288.49 · 2024-11-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.39M
@ $276.97 · 2024-10-01
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.38M
@ $276.37 · 2024-09-03
MCINERNEY RYAN
Chief Executive Officer
$2.37M
@ $275.00 · 2024-08-29
ROTTENBERG JULIE B
General Counsel
$707,300
@ $275.00 · 2024-08-29
MAHON TULLIER KELLY
Officer
$10.12M
@ $267.64 · 2024-08-16
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 →
LII
FearGreed
🥶Extreme Fear(15/100)

"Mr. Market is panicking — potential buying opportunity if fundamentals are strong"

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.
V
FearGreed
😏Greed(68/100)

"Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

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 →
LII
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: Extreme Fear (15)
V
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: Greed (68)
View LII Full AnalysisView V Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: LII vs V

Is Lennox International, Inc. or Visa Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, LII trades at a 25.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $557 vs. price $416), compared to V's -17.6% margin of safety (intrinsic $311 vs. $366).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Lennox International, Inc. or Visa Inc.?

V scores 99/100 (Wide moat), while LII scores 74/100 (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, Lennox International, Inc. or Visa Inc.?

Lennox International, Inc. (LII) generates a 4.4% free cash flow yield, compared to Visa Inc.'s 3.0%. 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, Lennox International, Inc. or Visa Inc.?

V earns 39.4% ROIC versus LII's 28.8%. 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, Lennox International, Inc.'s or Visa Inc.'s?

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

Does Lennox International, Inc. have accounting red flags?

LII's Beneish M-Score of -1.4 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, V scores -2.5, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.