ServiceNow, Inc. (NOW) vs Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?
As of 2026-06-19, NOW is overvalued at $95, with a DCF intrinsic value of $85 and a margin of safety of -12%. RJF is undervalued at $156, with an intrinsic value of $372 and a margin of safety of 58%. Of the two, RJF has the wider margin of safety.
Rewards
- ★Gross margin of 76.6% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
- ★Free cash flow has grown at a 27.8% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
- ★Each dollar of retained earnings has created $3.22 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.
- ★Gross margin of 93.0% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
- ★Raymond James Financial, Inc. scores 93/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
- ★Each dollar of retained earnings has created $1.34 of earning power — management is creating shareholder value.
Risks
- ⚠Despite buyback spending, shares outstanding increased in 3 out of 3 years — stock-based compensation is offsetting repurchases.
- ⚠FCF yield of 5.2% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
- ⚠6 insider sales totaling $2.7M with no purchases in the past 3 months — insiders are reducing their exposure.
- ⚠Altman Z-Score of 0.62 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
Key Valuation Metrics
Learn more →Historical Fundamentals
Learn more →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.
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 →> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
> $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 →Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth
Learn more →What growth rate is the market pricing in at $95?
The market implies +21.4% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.
Standard FCF implies a more demanding +6.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.
Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.
Economic Moat Score
Learn more →Narrow moat with revenue predictability as the key competitive advantage. Improving roic consistency would strengthen the moat.
Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. Margin Stability is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.
Forensic Accounting
Learn more →M-Score Trend
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.
Ownership Breakdown
Learn more →High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
Insider Buying Activity
Learn more →Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.
Insider Selling Activity
Learn more →Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.
🎭 Mr. Market's Mood
Learn more →"Market is pessimistic — investigate whether fears are temporary or structural"
"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"
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 →The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.
Frequently Asked Questions: NOW vs RJF
Is ServiceNow, Inc. or Raymond James Financial, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?▼
Based on our discounted cash flow model, RJF trades at a 58.1% margin of safety (intrinsic value $372 vs. price $156), compared to NOW's -11.8% margin of safety (intrinsic $85 vs. $95).
Which stock has a wider economic moat, ServiceNow, Inc. or Raymond James Financial, Inc.?▼
RJF scores 93/100 (Wide moat), while NOW scores 61/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.
Is Raymond James Financial, Inc. in financial distress?▼
RJF's Altman Z-Score of 0.6 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. NOW scores 8.4 (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, ServiceNow, Inc. or Raymond James Financial, Inc.?▼
RJF earns 12.0% ROIC versus NOW's 10.4%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.