Compare StocksMTB vs NVDA

M&T Bank Corporation (MTB) vs NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, MTB is undervalued at $225, with a DCF intrinsic value of $570 and a margin of safety of 61%. NVDA is overvalued at $211, with an intrinsic value of $163 and a margin of safety of -29%. Of the two, MTB has the wider margin of safety.

MTB
M&T Bank Corporation
$225.12
VS
NVDA
NVIDIA Corporation
$210.69

Rewards

MTB
  • M&T Bank Corporation scores 79/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with reinvestment efficiency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Share count has been reduced by 10% over the past 4 years through buybacks, increasing each share's claim on earnings.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.15 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
NVDA
  • NVIDIA Corporation has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
  • Gross margin of 74.1% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 193.9% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.

Risks

MTB
  • Gross margin of 0.0% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • Altman Z-Score of 0.28 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • Insiders have sold $6.4M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
NVDA
  • FCF yield of 1.9% is below 3%, meaning the market is pricing in substantial future growth to justify the current price.
  • Beneish M-Score of -1.06 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.
  • 39 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
MTB
NVDA
Valuation
N/A
Free Cash Flow
$96.68B
N/A
FCF Yield
1.89%
12.64
Trailing P/E
32.26
10.77
Forward P/E
16.55
Quality & Moat
14.71%
ROIC
63.06%
10.29%
ROE
114.29%
0.00%
Gross Margin
74.14%
1.47
PEG Ratio
0.64
Balance Sheet Safety
N/A
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
N/A
Net Debt / EBITDA
-0.24
2.59%
Dividend Yield
0.02%
MTB: 3Ties: 1NVDA: 4
MTBNVDA

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
MTB

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.

NVDA

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 →
MTB
$1.18
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Value Creator
Σ Retained
$5.13B
Δ Market Cap
+$6.03B
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
NVDA
$17.68
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$220.50B
Δ Market Cap
+$3.90T
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 →
MTB
60.5% Margin of Safety
Price is 60.5% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $225.12
Fair Value: $570.50
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
NVDA
44.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 44.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $210.69
Fair Value: $378.18
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
MTB

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

NVDA

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $211?

+17.9%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +20.8%

The market implies +17.9% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding +20.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
MTB
79/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by reinvestment efficiency. 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 5 years of fundamental data.
NVDA
69/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with roic consistency as the key competitive advantage. Improving revenue predictability would strengthen the moat.

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 →
MTB
-2.42
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.
NVDA
-1.06
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 →
MTB
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 93.1%Retail & Other 6.5%
No. of Institutional Holders1,446
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.
NVDA
Insiders 4.0%Institutions 70.9%Retail & Other 25.1%
No. of Institutional Holders7,556
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 →
MTB
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
NVDA
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 →
MTB
3
Sells (3M)
14
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $16.55M
PEARSON KEVIN J
Officer
$5.27M
@ $225.50 · 2026-06-09
PEARSON KEVIN J
Officer
$440,000
@ $220.00 · 2026-06-04
KAY CHRISTOPHER E
Officer
$672,232
@ $216.50 · 2026-05-07
WISLER MICHAEL A
Officer
$1.84M
@ $223.51 · 2026-02-26
WOODROW TRACY S
Officer
$246,623
@ $234.21 · 2026-02-11
BARNES JOHN P
Director
$5.00M
@ $235.85 · 2026-02-09
WALTERS KIRK W
Director
$206,676
@ $227.37 · 2026-02-03
TAYLOR JOHN R
Officer
$158,638
@ $225.34 · 2026-02-02
GEISEL GARY N
Director
$191,369
@ $215.99 · 2026-01-28
KAY CHRISTOPHER E
Officer
$1.01M
@ $191.70 · 2025-11-26
WOODROW TRACY S
Officer
$693,061
@ $202.12 · 2025-08-29
TAYLOR JOHN R
Officer
$89,502
@ $199.78 · 2025-08-26
D'ARCY PETER
Officer
$485,570
@ $197.31 · 2025-07-22
LEDGETT RICHARD H. JR.
Director
$252,178
@ $197.48 · 2025-07-21
KAY CHRISTOPHER E
Officer
$299,527
@ $172.34 · 2025-03-12
WOODROW TRACY S
Officer
$468,200
@ $220.74 · 2024-11-26
SALAMONE DENIS J
Director
$2.23M
@ $223.41 · 2024-11-25
WISLER MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.40M
@ $213.05 · 2024-11-14
TODARO MICHAEL J
Officer
$1.02M
@ $214.10 · 2024-11-12
PEARSON KEVIN J
Officer
$1.47M
@ $195.88 · 2024-11-01
O HARA LAURA PROSKE
Officer
$956,118
@ $196.93 · 2024-10-28
TAYLOR JOHN R
Officer
$280,057
@ $195.03 · 2024-10-28
JONES RENE F.
Chief Executive Officer
$4.47M
@ $193.88 · 2024-10-28
SALAMONE DENIS J
Director
$1.72M
@ $172.03 · 2024-09-03
TODARO MICHAEL J
Officer
$778,897
@ $162.58 · 2024-08-09
PEARSON KEVIN J
Officer
$989,066
@ $162.27 · 2024-08-09
GEISEL GARY N
Director
$86,249
@ $172.50 · 2024-07-24
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
NVDA
1
Sells (3M)
39
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $1.09B
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$133,750
@ $214.00 · 2026-05-27
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$942,944
@ $174.75 · 2026-03-20
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$3.36M
@ $176.71 · 2026-03-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$555,440
@ $184.90 · 2026-03-13
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$15.19M
@ $189.85 · 2026-01-02
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$4.43M
@ $179.98 · 2025-12-19
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$112,317
@ $179.42 · 2025-11-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$5.20M
@ $207.91 · 2025-10-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$23.56M
@ $188.47 · 2025-10-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.73M
@ $181.04 · 2025-10-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.06M
@ $182.48 · 2025-10-20
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$41.34M
@ $183.73 · 2025-10-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.89M
@ $190.60 · 2025-10-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.05M
@ $186.89 · 2025-10-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$42.09M
@ $187.08 · 2025-10-02
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.23M
@ $178.82 · 2025-09-29
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.21M
@ $178.69 · 2025-09-24
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.18M
@ $174.14 · 2025-09-19
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$617,298
@ $176.37 · 2025-09-19
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.75M
@ $176.66 · 2025-09-16
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.28M
@ $174.59 · 2025-09-11
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.01M
@ $168.95 · 2025-09-08
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.61M
@ $171.60 · 2025-09-03
HUDSON BEACH DAWN E
Director
$15.38M
@ $170.90 · 2025-09-03
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$27.12M
@ $180.79 · 2025-08-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.96M
@ $182.04 · 2025-08-13
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.66M
@ $180.70 · 2025-08-08
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.78M
@ $176.80 · 2025-08-05
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$40.18M
@ $178.58 · 2025-07-31
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$39.16M
@ $174.02 · 2025-07-28
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.22M
@ $169.87 · 2025-07-23
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$38.71M
@ $172.05 · 2025-07-18
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$37.59M
@ $167.08 · 2025-07-15
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$36.43M
@ $161.91 · 2025-07-10
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.55M
@ $158.02 · 2025-07-07
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$35.16M
@ $156.27 · 2025-07-01
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$30.47M
@ $152.33 · 2025-06-26
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$14.40M
@ $144.04 · 2025-06-23
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$646,469
@ $143.66 · 2025-06-20
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.74M
@ $134.82 · 2025-05-30
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$91,608
@ $138.80 · 2025-05-30
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.79M
@ $116.83 · 2025-03-21
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$525,585
@ $116.80 · 2025-03-21
SHAH AARTI S
Director
$2.37M
@ $118.42 · 2025-03-20
BURGESS ROBERT KENNETH
Director
$6.16M
@ $115.49 · 2025-03-13
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$292,930
@ $110.00 · 2025-03-10
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$9.03M
@ $135.40 · 2024-12-13
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$608,775
@ $135.28 · 2024-12-13
DABIRI JOHN O
Director
$101,672
@ $142.00 · 2024-11-25
KRESS COLETTE M.
Chief Financial Officer
$7.77M
@ $116.59 · 2024-09-20
ROBERTSON DONALD F JR
Officer
$524,293
@ $116.51 · 2024-09-20
HUANG JEN-HSUN
Chief Executive Officer
$28.55M
@ $118.97 · 2024-09-13
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 →
MTB
FearGreed
😏Greed(62/100)

"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.
NVDA
FearGreed
😐Neutral(56/100)

"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 →
MTB
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 (62)
NVDA
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 (56)
View MTB Full AnalysisView NVDA Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: MTB vs NVDA

Is M&T Bank Corporation or NVIDIA Corporation more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MTB trades at a 60.5% margin of safety (intrinsic value $570 vs. price $225), compared to NVDA's -29.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $163 vs. $211).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, M&T Bank Corporation or NVIDIA Corporation?

MTB scores 79/100 (Wide moat), while NVDA scores 69/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is M&T Bank Corporation in financial distress?

MTB's Altman Z-Score of 0.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. NVDA scores 66.7 (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, M&T Bank Corporation or NVIDIA Corporation?

NVDA earns 63.1% ROIC versus MTB's 14.7%. 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, M&T Bank Corporation's or NVIDIA Corporation's?

MTB's dividend earns a safety score of 94/100 (Very Safe), compared to NVDA's 91/100 (Very Safe). MTB has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.

Does NVIDIA Corporation have accounting red flags?

NVDA's Beneish M-Score of -1.1 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, MTB scores -2.4, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.

MTB vs NVDA: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io