Compare StocksCOP vs LMT

ConocoPhillips (COP) vs Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, COP is fairly valued at $108, with a DCF intrinsic value of $113 and a margin of safety of 5%. LMT is overvalued at $511, with an intrinsic value of $381 and a margin of safety of -34%. Of the two, COP has the wider margin of safety.

COP
ConocoPhillips
$107.74
VS
LMT
Lockheed Martin Corporation
$510.95

Rewards

COP
  • PEG ratio of 0.94 suggests the stock is undervalued relative to its growth rate — paying less than 1x for each unit of earnings growth.
LMT
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation scores 74/100 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

COP
  • ROIC has declined by 17.9 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
  • Buybacks have been poorly timed — 3 out of 4 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
  • FCF yield of 5.5% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
LMT
  • Gross margin of 9.9% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • FCF yield of 5.9% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • High leverage (2.51x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
COP
LMT
Valuation
$7.24B
Free Cash Flow
$6.91B
5.52%
FCF Yield
5.86%
18.26
Trailing P/E
24.77
11.72
Forward P/E
15.92
Quality & Moat
11.77%
ROIC
23.16%
11.28%
ROE
67.64%
45.59%
Gross Margin
9.91%
0.94
PEG Ratio
1.13
Balance Sheet Safety
0.26
Net Debt / Equity
2.51
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
0.73
Net Debt / EBITDA
2.35
3.02%
Dividend Yield
2.54%
COP: 7Ties: 2LMT: 3
COPLMT

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
COP

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.

LMT

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 →
COP
$-1.99
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$14.97B
Δ Market Cap
$-29.73B
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
LMT
$-1.60
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$8.03B
Δ Market Cap
$-12.81B
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 →
COP
24.6% Overvalued
Price is 24.6% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $107.74
Fair Value: $86.45
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
LMT
34.0% Overvalued
Price is 34.0% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $510.95
Fair Value: $381.34
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
COP

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $108?

+6.7%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +8.0%

The market implies +6.7% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +8.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

LMT

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $511?

+11.8%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +7.5%

The market implies +11.8% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +7.5%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

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

Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. 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.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
COP
-2.89
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.
LMT
-2.23
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 →
COP
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 87.6%Retail & Other 12.3%
No. of Institutional Holders3,171
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.
LMT
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 76.0%Retail & Other 23.9%
No. of Institutional Holders3,414
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 →
COP
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $500,000
MCRAVEN WILLIAM H.
Director
$500,000
@ $86.69 · 2025-11-10
JOHNSON KIRK L
Officer
$499,472
@ $94.24 · 2025-06-16
MURTI ARJUN N
Director
$239,675
@ $95.87 · 2024-12-20
WALKER R A
Director
$1.02M
@ $97.80 · 2024-12-17
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
LMT
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 →
COP
3
Sells (3M)
12
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $127.52M
MULLIGAN SHARMILA
Director
$234,906
@ $119.00 · 2026-06-10
ROSE KELLY BRUNETTI
General Counsel
$1.00M
@ $130.03 · 2026-03-24
OLDS NICHOLAS G
Officer
$888,651
@ $127.06 · 2026-03-23
LANCE RYAN MICHAEL
Chief Executive Officer
$64.49M
@ $127.26 · 2026-03-20
HRAP HEATHER G.
Officer
$317,631
@ $119.68 · 2026-03-13
LUNDQUIST ANDREW D
Officer
$4.13M
@ $119.68 · 2026-03-13
OLDS NICHOLAS G
Officer
$1.73M
@ $119.36 · 2026-03-12
HAYNES-WELSH KONTESSA S.
Officer
$1.24M
@ $120.07 · 2026-03-12
OLDS NICHOLAS G
Officer
$1.41M
@ $116.37 · 2026-03-11
ROSE KELLY BRUNETTI
General Counsel
$1.00M
@ $118.04 · 2026-03-09
LEACH TIMOTHY ALLEN
Director
$4.75M
@ $118.79 · 2026-03-06
LANCE RYAN MICHAEL
Chief Executive Officer
$46.32M
@ $92.50 · 2025-12-19
LEACH TIMOTHY ALLEN
Director
$6.00M
@ $108.11 · 2024-08-13
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
LMT
0
Sells (3M)
4
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $10.29M
CAHILL TIMOTHY S
Officer
$3.00M
@ $649.47 · 2026-03-11
ULMER GREGORY M
Officer
$1.87M
@ $658.08 · 2026-02-27
HILL STEPHANIE C
Officer
$1.59M
@ $660.64 · 2026-02-24
ST JOHN FRANK A
Chief Operating Officer
$3.83M
@ $491.04 · 2025-10-23
HILL STEPHANIE C
Officer
$2.12M
@ $442.51 · 2025-02-26
LIGHTFOOT ROBERT M JR
Officer
$1.42M
@ $442.42 · 2025-02-26
PAUL HARRY EDWARD III
Officer
$312,923
@ $442.61 · 2025-02-26
HILL STEPHANIE C
Officer
$1.78M
@ $542.72 · 2024-08-01
CAHILL TIMOTHY S
Officer
$2.05M
@ $515.36 · 2024-07-24
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 →
COP
FearGreed
😐Neutral(46/100)

"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.
LMT
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.

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 →
COP
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 (46)
LMT
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)
View COP Full AnalysisView LMT Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: COP vs LMT

Is ConocoPhillips or Lockheed Martin Corporation more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, COP trades at a 4.7% margin of safety (intrinsic value $113 vs. price $108), compared to LMT's -34.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $381 vs. $511).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, ConocoPhillips or Lockheed Martin Corporation?

LMT scores 74/100 (Wide moat), while COP scores 38/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is ConocoPhillips in financial distress?

COP's Altman Z-Score of 2.8 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. LMT scores 3.3 (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, ConocoPhillips or Lockheed Martin Corporation?

Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT) generates a 5.9% free cash flow yield, compared to ConocoPhillips's 5.5%. 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, ConocoPhillips or Lockheed Martin Corporation?

LMT earns 23.2% ROIC versus COP's 11.8%. 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, ConocoPhillips's or Lockheed Martin Corporation's?

LMT's dividend earns a safety score of 84/100 (Very Safe), compared to COP's 78/100 (Safe). LMT has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.