Compare StocksMS vs TTWO

Morgan Stanley (MS) vs Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (TTWO): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-09-17, MS is undervalued at $202, with a DCF intrinsic value of $303 and a margin of safety of 33%. TTWO is undervalued at $212, with an intrinsic value of $326 and a margin of safety of 35%. Of the two, TTWO has the wider margin of safety.

MS
Morgan Stanley
$202.42
VS
TTWO
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
$211.81

Rewards

MS
  • Gross margin of 87.6% 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.
TTWO
  • Altman Z-Score of 3.66 indicates very low bankruptcy risk — the company is firmly in the safe zone.

Risks

MS
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • Insiders have sold $5.4M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
TTWO
  • PEG ratio of 3.05 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • 5 insider sales with no purchases in the past 3 months — insiders are reducing their exposure.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
MS
TTWO
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$1.26B
N/A
FCF Yield
3.17%
16.34
Trailing P/E
N/A
14.84
Forward P/E
20.58
Quality & Moat
3.53%
ROIC
0.42%
17.97%
ROE
-9.04%
87.64%
Gross Margin
57.13%
1.82
PEG Ratio
3.05
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
0.31
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
1.46
2.27%
Dividend Yield
0.00%
MS: 7Ties: 1TTWO: 0
MSTTWO

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.

TTWO
No data available for this metric.

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
TTWO
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-8.52B
Δ Market Cap
+$12.09B
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
33.2% Margin of Safety
Price is 33.2% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $202.42
Fair Value: $303.09
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TTWO
35.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 35.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $211.81
Fair Value: $325.90
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

TTWO

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $212?

+20.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +14.3%

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.
TTWO
39/100
No Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

No durable moat detected, though reinvestment efficiency 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 5 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.
TTWO

Insufficient data for Beneish M-Score calculation (requires 2+ years).

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 63.2%Retail & Other 12.4%
No. of Institutional Holders3,488
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.
TTWO
Insiders 1.8%Institutions 99.9%
No. of Institutional Holders1,550
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)
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
TTWO
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
2
Sells (3M)
14
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $64.71M
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
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$9.74M
@ $188.59 · 2026-04-16
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$3.04M
@ $188.22 · 2026-04-16
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$6.02M
@ $182.61 · 2026-01-30
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 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
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
PICK EDWARD N.
Chief Executive Officer
$16.43M
@ $164.34 · 2025-10-31
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.53M
@ $140.62 · 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
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$2.81M
@ $140.30 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$3.70M
@ $127.37 · 2025-05-12
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.80M
@ $120.00 · 2025-05-02
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$95,459
@ $119.32 · 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
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 2025-01-21
AKRAM RAJA
Chief Financial Officer
$2.38M
@ $136.01 · 2025-01-21
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$5.00M
@ $136.61 · 2025-01-21
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 2025-01-21
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TTWO
5
Sells (3M)
23
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $13.05M
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$361,055
@ $217.37 · 2026-09-03
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$290,563
@ $217.65 · 2026-09-02
SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
Director
$88,694
@ $245.01 · 2026-08-17
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$31,116
@ $245.01 · 2026-08-17
MOSES JON J
Director
$122,305
@ $244.61 · 2026-06-22
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$1.02M
@ $230.00 · 2026-06-16
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$950,515
@ $215.00 · 2026-06-15
MOSES JON J
Director
$107,608
@ $215.22 · 2026-06-15
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$1.89M
@ $214.00 · 2026-06-08
DORNEMANN MICHAEL
Director
$249,790
@ $217.02 · 2026-06-04
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$4.63M
@ $219.61 · 2026-06-02
SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
Director
$85,548
@ $229.35 · 2026-06-01
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$28,592
@ $218.26 · 2026-05-29
GORDON WILLIAM BINGHAM
Director
$521,725
@ $208.69 · 2026-03-09
DORNEMANN MICHAEL
Director
$296,195
@ $213.09 · 2026-03-05
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$248,906
@ $213.47 · 2026-03-02
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$535,637
@ $213.57 · 2026-03-02
GORDON WILLIAM BINGHAM
Director
$522,525
@ $209.01 · 2026-03-02
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$30,183
@ $194.73 · 2026-02-18
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$274,658
@ $248.11 · 2025-12-02
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$399,953
@ $248.11 · 2025-12-02
SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
Director
$321,664
@ $238.27 · 2025-11-18
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$42,790
@ $235.11 · 2025-11-17
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$2.50M
@ $250.00 · 2025-09-08
MOSES JON J
Director
$239,570
@ $239.57 · 2025-09-04
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$474,110
@ $238.73 · 2025-09-03
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$2.77M
@ $239.57 · 2025-09-02
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$4.61M
@ $230.64 · 2025-08-28
SLATOFF KARL
President
$11.16M
@ $227.68 · 2025-08-21
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$5.11M
@ $227.47 · 2025-08-21
SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
Director
$528,868
@ $227.47 · 2025-08-21
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$46,227
@ $233.47 · 2025-08-18
MOSES JON J
Director
$231,330
@ $231.33 · 2025-08-15
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$6.09M
@ $225.22 · 2025-06-02
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$8.95M
@ $225.22 · 2025-06-02
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$45,106
@ $225.53 · 2025-06-02
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$37,057
@ $214.20 · 2025-03-06
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$121,885
@ $211.24 · 2025-03-03
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$175,118
@ $211.24 · 2025-03-03
SLATOFF KARL
President
$7.02M
@ $208.13 · 2025-02-25
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$262,197
@ $187.95 · 2024-12-03
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$212,221
@ $187.64 · 2024-12-02
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$818,545
@ $176.79 · 2024-11-08
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$8.76M
@ $175.05 · 2024-11-08
SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
Director
$358,340
@ $179.17 · 2024-11-08
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(52/100)

"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.
TTWO
FearGreed
😨Fear(38/100)

"Market is pessimistic — investigate whether fears are temporary or structural"

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 (52)
TTWO
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: Fear (38)
View MS Full AnalysisView TTWO Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: MS vs TTWO

Is Morgan Stanley or Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, TTWO trades at a 35.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $326 vs. price $212), compared to MS's 33.2% margin of safety (intrinsic $303 vs. $202).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Morgan Stanley or Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.?

MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while TTWO scores 39/100 (None 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. TTWO scores 3.7 (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 Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.?

MS earns 3.5% ROIC versus TTWO's 0.4%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.