Compare StocksCOP vs LOW

ConocoPhillips (COP) vs Lowe's Companies, Inc. (LOW): 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%. LOW is overvalued at $222, with an intrinsic value of $182 and a margin of safety of -22%. Of the two, COP has the wider margin of safety.

COP
ConocoPhillips
$107.74
VS
LOW
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
$222.20

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.
LOW
  • Lowe's Companies, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Lowe's Companies, Inc. scores 80/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with margin stability as the strongest competitive dimension.

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.
LOW
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has produced only $0.05 of earning power — shareholders may have been better served by dividends.
  • FCF yield of 6.1% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • Beneish M-Score of 8.81 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
COP
LOW
Valuation
$7.24B
Free Cash Flow
$7.65B
5.52%
FCF Yield
6.14%
18.26
Trailing P/E
18.78
11.72
Forward P/E
16.49
Quality & Moat
11.77%
ROIC
18.17%
11.28%
ROE
N/A
45.59%
Gross Margin
33.29%
0.94
PEG Ratio
1.46
Balance Sheet Safety
0.26
Net Debt / Equity
N/A
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
0.73
Net Debt / EBITDA
3.32
3.02%
Dividend Yield
2.23%
COP: 5Ties: 2LOW: 3
COPLOW

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.

LOW

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
LOW
$-0.67
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$13.60B
Δ Market Cap
$-9.11B
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
LOW
22.0% Overvalued
Price is 22.0% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $222.20
Fair Value: $182.09
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.

LOW

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $222?

+10.7%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +8.8%

The market implies +10.7% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +8.8%, 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.
LOW
80/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. Margin Stability 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 →
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.
LOW
8.81
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.

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.
LOW
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 81.3%Retail & Other 18.6%
No. of Institutional Holders3,367
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
LOW
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $231,063
SIMKINS LAWRENCE
Director
$231,063
@ $231.06 · 2025-11-24
SIMKINS LAWRENCE
Director
$245,532
@ $245.53 · 2024-12-20
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
LOW
0
Sells (3M)
6
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $32.32M
VANCE QUONTA D
Officer
$2.67M
@ $257.54 · 2026-03-04
ELLISON MARVIN R
Chief Executive Officer
$4.70M
@ $261.17 · 2026-01-09
MCFARLAND JOSEPH MICHAEL III
Officer
$11.94M
@ $272.60 · 2025-09-11
SINK BRANDON J.
Chief Financial Officer
$2.20M
@ $268.58 · 2025-09-05
PRYOR JULIETTE WILLIAMS
Officer
$238,939
@ $257.20 · 2025-08-26
ELLISON MARVIN R
Chief Executive Officer
$10.56M
@ $264.10 · 2025-08-20
DUPRE JANICE M.
Officer
$350,039
@ $224.38 · 2025-06-10
PRYOR JULIETTE WILLIAMS
Officer
$257,077
@ $227.50 · 2025-06-03
VANCE QUONTA D
Officer
$1.97M
@ $274.37 · 2024-11-27
MCFARLAND JOSEPH MICHAEL III
Officer
$1.08M
@ $270.74 · 2024-10-03
GODBOLE SEEMANTINI P
Chief Technology Officer
$7.12M
@ $271.73 · 2024-10-03
VAGELL MARGRETHE R
Officer
$1.56M
@ $271.45 · 2024-10-02
GRIGGS DAN CLAYTON JR.
Officer
$1.68M
@ $248.82 · 2024-09-12
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.
LOW
FearGreed
😐Neutral(47/100)

"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)
LOW
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 (47)
View COP Full AnalysisView LOW Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: COP vs LOW

Is ConocoPhillips or Lowe's Companies, Inc. 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 LOW's -22.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $182 vs. $222).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, ConocoPhillips or Lowe's Companies, Inc.?

LOW scores 80/100 (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. LOW scores 3.1 (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 Lowe's Companies, Inc.?

Lowe's Companies, Inc. (LOW) generates a 6.1% 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 Lowe's Companies, Inc.?

LOW earns 18.2% 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 Lowe's Companies, Inc.'s?

LOW's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to COP's 78/100 (Safe). LOW has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

Does Lowe's Companies, Inc. have accounting red flags?

LOW's Beneish M-Score of 8.8 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, COP scores -2.9, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.