Compare StocksLRCX vs MS

Lam Research Corporation (LRCX) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, LRCX is overvalued at $389, with a DCF intrinsic value of $278 and a margin of safety of -40%. MS is undervalued at $223, with an intrinsic value of $298 and a margin of safety of 25%. Of the two, MS has the wider margin of safety.

LRCX
Lam Research Corporation
$389.04
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$223.17

Rewards

LRCX
  • Lam Research Corporation has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Lam Research Corporation scores 81/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with margin stability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 28.5% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
MS
  • Gross margin of 87.4% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Morgan Stanley scores 80/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $3.56 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

LRCX
  • Buybacks have been poorly timed — 3 out of 4 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
  • FCF yield of 0.9% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Trailing P/E of 73.7x is 189% above the historical average of 25.5x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
MS
  • Trailing P/E of 20.2x is 26% above the historical average of 16.1x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
  • PEG ratio of 2.66 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
LRCX
MS
Valuation
$4.35B
Free Cash Flow
N/A
0.89%
FCF Yield
N/A
73.68
Trailing P/E
20.21
48.78
Forward P/E
17.56
Quality & Moat
41.92%
ROIC
3.38%
66.76%
ROE
16.39%
49.98%
Gross Margin
87.39%
2.14
PEG Ratio
2.66
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
-0.13
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
0.28%
Dividend Yield
1.81%
LRCX: 3Ties: 1MS: 5
LRCXMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
LRCX

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.

MS

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 →
LRCX
$15.03
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$10.62B
Δ Market Cap
+$159.61B
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
MS
$6.65
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$20.84B
Δ Market Cap
+$138.59B
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 →
LRCX
19.2% Overvalued
Price is 19.2% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $389.04
Fair Value: $326.25
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
MS
25.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 25.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $223.17
Fair Value: $297.53
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
LRCX

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $389?

+28.5%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +31.5%

The market implies +28.5% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +31.5%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
LRCX
81/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by margin stability. Revenue Predictability 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.
MS
80/100
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 →
LRCX
-2.28
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.
MS
-2.09
Possible 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 →
LRCX
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 88.1%Retail & Other 11.6%
No. of Institutional Holders3,504
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.
MS
Insiders 24.3%Institutions 62.8%Retail & Other 12.9%
No. of Institutional Holders3,208
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 →
LRCX
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
HARTER AVA
Officer
$602.00
@ $66.89 · 2025-04-08
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
MS
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $5,630
PETERSON DOUGLAS L
Director
$5,630
@ $156.39 · 2025-10-17
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 →
LRCX
5
Sells (3M)
16
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $119.03M
BRANDT ERIC K
Director
$20.01M
@ $367.18 · 2026-06-12
BRANDT ERIC K
Director
$19.12M
@ $350.80 · 2026-06-11
FERNANDES NEIL J
Officer
$2.37M
@ $309.60 · 2026-06-01
FERNANDES NEIL J
Officer
$4.64M
@ $255.14 · 2026-05-01
HARTER AVA
Officer
$1.55M
@ $258.66 · 2026-04-27
HARTER AVA
Officer
$333,990
@ $222.66 · 2026-03-04
BETTINGER DOUGLAS R
Chief Financial Officer
$11.21M
@ $224.03 · 2026-03-04
HARTER AVA
Officer
$930,000
@ $232.50 · 2026-03-02
BETTINGER DOUGLAS R
Chief Financial Officer
$9.28M
@ $230.22 · 2026-03-02
BRANDT ERIC K
Director
$7.90M
@ $225.60 · 2026-02-06
ARCHER TIMOTHY M
Chief Executive Officer
$26.76M
@ $163.86 · 2025-12-17
BETTINGER DOUGLAS R
Chief Financial Officer
$6.04M
@ $150.60 · 2025-11-14
MAYER BETHANY J
Director
$4,786
@ $159.53 · 2025-11-07
MAYER BETHANY J
Director
$207,667
@ $159.99 · 2025-11-03
HARTER AVA
Officer
$1.42M
@ $157.47 · 2025-10-27
VAHEDI VAHID
Officer
$7.25M
@ $138.90 · 2025-10-13
VARADARAJAN SESHASAYEE
Officer
$9.91M
@ $90.00 · 2025-02-20
MAYER BETHANY J
Director
$124,757
@ $75.15 · 2024-11-01
CORREIA CHRISTINA
Officer
$528,929
@ $817.51 · 2024-10-01
FERNANDES NEIL J
Officer
$1.71M
@ $1056.99 · 2024-07-12
CORREIA CHRISTINA
Officer
$687,282
@ $1062.26 · 2024-07-01
ARCHER TIMOTHY M
Chief Executive Officer
$14.67M
@ $1067.12 · 2024-06-28
ARCHER TIMOTHY M
Chief Executive Officer
$6.04M
@ $1078.53 · 2024-06-28
ARCHER TIMOTHY M
Chief Executive Officer
$10.33M
@ $1070.39 · 2024-06-28
FERNANDES NEIL J
Officer
$4.65M
@ $1055.76 · 2024-06-27
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
MS
4
Sells (3M)
16
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $70.42M
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$2.12M
@ $190.75 · 2026-04-20
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$2.78M
@ $189.24 · 2026-04-17
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$3.04M
@ $188.22 · 2026-04-16
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$9.74M
@ $188.59 · 2026-04-16
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$6.02M
@ $182.61 · 2026-01-30
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.44M
@ $183.45 · 2026-01-20
YESHAYA SHARON
Chief Financial Officer
$2.94M
@ $185.77 · 2026-01-20
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$1.55M
@ $182.08 · 2026-01-20
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$5.57M
@ $183.62 · 2026-01-20
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$3.97M
@ $184.00 · 2026-01-20
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 2026-01-20
PICK EDWARD N.
Chief Executive Officer
$16.43M
@ $164.34 · 2025-10-31
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$2.81M
@ $140.30 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.09M
@ $141.13 · 2025-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.69M
@ $141.12 · 2025-07-17
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.53M
@ $140.62 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$3.70M
@ $127.37 · 2025-05-12
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$95,459
@ $119.32 · 2025-05-02
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.80M
@ $120.00 · 2025-05-02
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.12M
@ $111.65 · 2025-04-15
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.15M
@ $138.06 · 2025-01-22
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 2025-01-21
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$5.00M
@ $136.61 · 2025-01-21
AKRAM RAJA
Chief Financial Officer
$2.38M
@ $136.01 · 2025-01-21
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 2025-01-21
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$368,375
@ $105.25 · 2024-07-26
AKRAM RAJA
Officer
$797,764
@ $106.37 · 2024-07-18
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$106,621
@ $106.62 · 2024-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.26M
@ $106.54 · 2024-07-17
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 →
LRCX
FearGreed
😏Greed(65/100)

"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.
MS
FearGreed
😏Greed(70/100)

"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 →
LRCX
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 (65)
MS
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 (70)
View LRCX Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: LRCX vs MS

Is Lam Research Corporation or Morgan Stanley more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MS trades at a 25.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $298 vs. price $223), compared to LRCX's -40.1% margin of safety (intrinsic $278 vs. $389).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Lam Research Corporation or Morgan Stanley?

LRCX scores 81/100 (Wide moat), while MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Morgan Stanley in financial distress?

MS's Altman Z-Score of 0.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. LRCX scores 15.5 (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 stock has higher return on invested capital, Lam Research Corporation or Morgan Stanley?

LRCX earns 41.9% ROIC versus MS's 3.4%. 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, Lam Research Corporation's or Morgan Stanley's?

LRCX's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to MS's 79/100 (Safe). LRCX has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.