Compare Stocks › MS vs TGT

Morgan Stanley (MS) vs Target Corporation (TGT): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, MS is undervalued at $184, with a DCF intrinsic value of $314 and a margin of safety of 41%. TGT is overvalued at $154, with an intrinsic value of $95 and a margin of safety of -63%. Of the two, MS has the wider margin of safety.

MS
Morgan Stanley
$184.30
VS
TGT
Target Corporation
$154.38

Rewards

MS
  • ★Gross margin of 87.3% 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.
TGT
  • ★Target Corporation has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
  • ★Target Corporation scores 78/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with roic consistency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • ★Return on equity has consistently exceeded 20% over 4 years, indicating efficient use of shareholder capital.

Risks

MS
  • ⚠Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • ⚠13 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.
TGT
  • ⚠PEG ratio of 2.11 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • ⚠Insiders have sold $2.8M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
MS
TGT
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$3.43B
N/A
FCF Yield
4.89%
14.62
Trailing P/E
16.03
13.50
Forward P/E
16.17
Quality & Moat
3.47%
ROIC
13.88%
13.84%
ROE
26.41%
87.31%
Gross Margin
28.38%
1.61
PEG Ratio
2.11
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
0.77
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
1.60
2.50%
Dividend Yield
3.01%
MS: 5Ties: 1TGT: 3
MSTGT

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
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.

TGT

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 →
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
TGT
$0.75
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Mediocre Allocator
Σ Retained
$5.82B
Δ Market Cap
+$4.35B
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 →
MS
41.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 41.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $184.30
Fair Value: $313.71
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TGT
63.4% Overvalued
Price is 63.4% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $154.38
Fair Value: $94.51
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

TGT

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $154?

+9.4%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +10.4%

The market implies +9.4% Owner Earnings growth, roughly in line with history — reasonably priced.

Standard FCF implies +10.4%, reflecting ongoing growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
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.
TGT
78/100
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 →
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.
TGT
-2.33
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 →
MS
Insiders 24.4%Institutions 63.5%Retail & Other 12.1%
No. of Institutional Holders3,458
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.
TGT
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 89.8%Retail & Other 9.9%
No. of Institutional Holders2,518
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 →
MS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
PETERSON DOUGLAS L
Director
$5,630
@ $156.39 · 2025-10-17
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
TGT
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 →
MS
0
Sells (3M)
13
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $48.28M
SCHAPIRO MARY L
Director
$212,055
@ $212.06 · 2026-07-28
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$5.21M
@ $215.55 · 2026-07-17
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
YESHAYA SHARON
Chief Financial Officer
$2.94M
@ $185.77 · 2026-01-20
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$1.55M
@ $182.08 · 2026-01-20
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$3.97M
@ $184.00 · 2026-01-20
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.44M
@ $183.45 · 2026-01-20
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 2026-01-20
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$5.57M
@ $183.62 · 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
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.69M
@ $141.12 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.09M
@ $141.13 · 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
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 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
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 2025-01-21
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TGT
2
Sells (3M)
6
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $5.49M
KREMER MELISSA K
Officer
$2.63M
@ $169.96 · 2026-08-24
LIEGEL MATTHEW A
Officer
$151,410
@ $163.51 · 2026-08-21
ROATH LISA R
Officer
$966,490
@ $138.07 · 2026-06-29
SYLVESTER CARA A
Officer
$1.26M
@ $125.89 · 2026-05-29
LIEGEL MATTHEW A
Officer
$240,593
@ $117.19 · 2026-03-17
LIEGEL MATTHEW A
Officer
$240,593
@ $117.19 · 2026-03-17
LIEGEL MATTHEW A
Officer
$206,245
@ $100.90 · 2025-06-10
LIEGEL MATTHEW A
Officer
$32,580
@ $113.52 · 2025-03-07
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 →
MS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(49/100)

"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.
TGT
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 →
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: Neutral (49)
TGT
⚪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 MS Full AnalysisView TGT Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: MS vs TGT

Is Morgan Stanley or Target Corporation more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MS trades at a 41.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $314 vs. price $184), compared to TGT's -63.4% margin of safety (intrinsic $95 vs. $154).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Morgan Stanley or Target Corporation?▼

MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while TGT scores 78/100 (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. TGT scores 3.2 (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, Morgan Stanley or Target Corporation?▼

TGT earns 13.9% ROIC versus MS's 3.5%. 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, Morgan Stanley's or Target Corporation's?▼

MS's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to TGT's 69/100 (Safe). MS has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

MS vs TGT: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io