Compare StocksLOW vs PG

Lowe's Companies, Inc. (LOW) vs The Procter & Gamble Company (PG): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, LOW is overvalued at $222, with a DCF intrinsic value of $182 and a margin of safety of -22%. PG is overvalued at $150, with an intrinsic value of $100 and a margin of safety of -50%. Of the two, LOW has the wider margin of safety.

LOW
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
$222.20
VS
PG
The Procter & Gamble Company
$150.38

Rewards

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.
PG
  • The Procter & Gamble Company has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • The Procter & Gamble Company scores 94/100 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

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.
PG
  • PEG ratio of 4.28 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • 28 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
LOW
PG
Valuation
$7.65B
Free Cash Flow
$12.73B
6.14%
FCF Yield
3.64%
18.78
Trailing P/E
21.95
16.49
Forward P/E
21.19
Quality & Moat
18.17%
ROIC
17.21%
N/A
ROE
31.11%
33.29%
Gross Margin
50.98%
1.46
PEG Ratio
4.28
Balance Sheet Safety
N/A
Net Debt / Equity
0.45
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
3.32
Net Debt / EBITDA
0.99
2.23%
Dividend Yield
2.81%
LOW: 5Ties: 1PG: 4
LOWPG

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
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.

PG

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 →
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
PG
$-1.57
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$17.32B
Δ Market Cap
$-27.18B
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 →
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
PG
50.0% Overvalued
Price is 50.0% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $150.38
Fair Value: $100.24
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
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.

PG

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $150?

+9.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +13.0%

The market implies +9.9% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +13.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
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.
PG
94/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. Revenue Predictability 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 →
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.
PG
-2.54
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 →
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.
PG
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 71.9%Retail & Other 28.0%
No. of Institutional Holders5,034
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 →
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
PG
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 →
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
PG
0
Sells (3M)
28
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $78.99M
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$917,199
@ $165.29 · 2026-02-27
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$288,454
@ $159.45 · 2026-02-19
AGUILAR MOSES VICTOR JAVIER
Officer
$2.46M
@ $162.28 · 2026-02-13
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$5.86M
@ $162.33 · 2026-02-12
MOELLER JON R
Officer and Director
$28.12M
@ $162.29 · 2026-02-12
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$2.06M
@ $160.31 · 2026-02-11
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$1.26M
@ $158.00 · 2026-02-04
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$14.50M
@ $151.15 · 2026-01-23
JANZARUK MATTHEW W.
Officer
$108,438
@ $149.57 · 2025-10-30
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$366,574
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$74,594
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
SCHULTEN ANDRE
Chief Financial Officer
$647,289
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$491,252
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
JEJURIKAR SHAILESH
Chief Operating Officer
$606,796
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$538,139
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
MOELLER JON R
Chief Executive Officer
$1.78M
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$156,835
@ $156.84 · 2025-08-29
RAMAN SUNDAR G.
Officer
$1.51M
@ $158.16 · 2025-08-21
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$1.61M
@ $158.16 · 2025-08-21
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$969,908
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$95,308
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
SCHULTEN ANDRE
Chief Financial Officer
$1.83M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
JANZARUK MATTHEW W.
Officer
$50,170
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$1.35M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$1.43M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
JEJURIKAR SHAILESH
Chief Operating Officer
$2.05M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
MOELLER JON R
Chief Executive Officer
$6.31M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$1.55M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
AGUILAR MOSES VICTOR JAVIER
Officer
$1.67M
@ $158.67 · 2025-05-05
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$161,384
@ $161.38 · 2025-04-29
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$6.08M
@ $173.68 · 2025-02-28
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$3.09M
@ $171.66 · 2025-02-25
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$14.82M
@ $163.84 · 2025-01-23
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 →
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.
PG
FearGreed
😐Neutral(59/100)

"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 →
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)
PG
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 (59)
View LOW Full AnalysisView PG Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: LOW vs PG

Is Lowe's Companies, Inc. or The Procter & Gamble Company more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, LOW trades at a -22.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $182 vs. price $222), compared to PG's -50.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $100 vs. $150).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Lowe's Companies, Inc. or The Procter & Gamble Company?

PG scores 94/100 (Wide moat), while LOW scores 80/100 (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, Lowe's Companies, Inc. or The Procter & Gamble Company?

Lowe's Companies, Inc. (LOW) generates a 6.1% free cash flow yield, compared to The Procter & Gamble Company's 3.6%. 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, Lowe's Companies, Inc. or The Procter & Gamble Company?

LOW earns 18.2% ROIC versus PG's 17.2%. 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, Lowe's Companies, Inc.'s or The Procter & Gamble Company's?

LOW's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to PG's 69/100 (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, PG scores -2.5, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.

LOW vs PG: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io