Compare StocksNVDA vs PLD

NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA) vs Prologis, Inc. (PLD): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, NVDA is overvalued at $211, with a DCF intrinsic value of $163 and a margin of safety of -29%. PLD is overvalued at $141, with an intrinsic value of $92 and a margin of safety of -52%. Of the two, NVDA has the wider margin of safety.

NVDA
NVIDIA Corporation
$210.69
VS
PLD
Prologis, Inc.
$140.54

Rewards

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.
PLD
  • Gross margin of 75.6% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.

Risks

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.
PLD
  • PEG ratio of 113.67 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • Net debt/EBITDA of 5.2x indicates heavy leverage — it would take over 4 years of EBITDA to pay off net debt.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
NVDA
PLD
Valuation
$96.68B
Free Cash Flow
$4.85B
1.89%
FCF Yield
3.69%
32.26
Trailing P/E
35.40
16.55
Forward P/E
41.86
Quality & Moat
63.06%
ROIC
3.06%
114.29%
ROE
6.84%
74.14%
Gross Margin
75.60%
0.64
PEG Ratio
113.67
Balance Sheet Safety
Net cash
Net Debt / Equity
0.59
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
-0.24
Net Debt / EBITDA
5.25
0.02%
Dividend Yield
2.91%
NVDA: 8Ties: 2PLD: 2
NVDAPLD

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
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.

PLD

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 →
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
PLD
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-444.7M
Δ Market Cap
+$14.55B
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 →
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
PLD
52.3% Overvalued
Price is 52.3% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $140.54
Fair Value: $92.26
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
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.

PLD

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $141?

+20.2%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +15.0%

The market implies +20.2% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +15.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
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.
PLD
49/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with margin stability as the key competitive advantage. Improving reinvestment efficiency 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 5 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
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.
PLD
-2.19
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 →
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.
PLD
Insiders 0.3%Institutions 98.1%Retail & Other 1.6%
No. of Institutional Holders2,288
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 →
NVDA
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
PLD
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
SLUSSER SARAH ANN
Director
$1,395
@ $107.31 · 2025-05-14
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 →
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
PLD
0
Sells (3M)
7
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $13.23M
SLUSSER SARAH ANN
Director
$12,631
@ $113.79 · 2026-01-28
BITA CRISTINA GABRIELA
Director
$79,240
@ $127.60 · 2025-12-01
BITA CRISTINA GABRIELA
Director
$61,570
@ $123.14 · 2025-11-03
CONNOR JAMES B
Director
$10.13M
@ $126.58 · 2025-10-24
BITA CRISTINA GABRIELA
Director
$57,845
@ $115.69 · 2025-10-01
BITA CRISTINA GABRIELA
Director
$111,000
@ $111.00 · 2025-09-03
PALAZZOLO LORI A
Officer
$2.78M
@ $111.33 · 2025-08-26
GHAZAL JOSEPH
Chief Investment Officer
$1.31M
@ $118.74 · 2025-02-05
GHAZAL JOSEPH
Chief Investment Officer
$671,164
@ $129.07 · 2024-08-23
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 →
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.
PLD
FearGreed
😏Greed(61/100)

"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 →
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)
PLD
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 (61)
View NVDA Full AnalysisView PLD Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: NVDA vs PLD

Is NVIDIA Corporation or Prologis, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, NVDA trades at a -29.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $163 vs. price $211), compared to PLD's -52.3% margin of safety (intrinsic $92 vs. $141).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, NVIDIA Corporation or Prologis, Inc.?

NVDA scores 69/100 (Narrow moat), while PLD scores 49/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Prologis, Inc. in financial distress?

PLD's Altman Z-Score of 1.9 places it in the Grey 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 company has better free cash flow, NVIDIA Corporation or Prologis, Inc.?

Prologis, Inc. (PLD) generates a 3.7% free cash flow yield, compared to NVIDIA Corporation's 1.9%. A higher FCF yield means the business converts more of its market value into cash that can be returned to shareholders or reinvested.

Which stock has higher return on invested capital, NVIDIA Corporation or Prologis, Inc.?

NVDA earns 63.1% ROIC versus PLD's 3.1%. 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, NVIDIA Corporation's or Prologis, Inc.'s?

NVDA's dividend earns a safety score of 91/100 (Very Safe), compared to PLD's 39/100 (Unsafe). NVDA has raised its dividend for 2 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, PLD scores -2.2, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.