Compare StocksLOW vs PG

Lowe's Companies, Inc. (LOW) vs Procter & Gamble Company (The) (PG): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, LOW is undervalued at $208, with a DCF intrinsic value of $101593479341 and a margin of safety of 100%. PG is undervalued at $144, with an intrinsic value of $220753045647 and a margin of safety of 100%. Of the two, PG has the wider margin of safety.

LOW
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
$207.81
VS
PG
Procter & Gamble Company (The)
$144.49

Rewards

LOW
  • Lowe's Companies, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Lowe's Companies, Inc. scores 80/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with margin stability as the strongest competitive dimension.
PG
  • Procter & Gamble Company (The) has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • Procter & Gamble Company (The) scores 94/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Return on equity has consistently exceeded 20% over 4 years, indicating efficient use of shareholder capital.

Risks

LOW
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has produced only $0.05 of earning power — shareholders may have been better served by dividends.
  • Beneish M-Score of 8.81 flags financial patterns consistent with potential earnings manipulation — warrants further investigation.
  • Insiders have sold $5.8M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
PG
  • PEG ratio of 5.57 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
  • 28 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
LOW
PG
Valuation
$7.65B
Free Cash Flow
$12.84B
0.00%
FCF Yield
N/A
17.58
Trailing P/E
21.83
15.44
Forward P/E
19.50
Quality & Moat
18.17%
ROIC
15.19%
N/A
ROE
30.29%
33.29%
Gross Margin
50.68%
1.36
PEG Ratio
5.57
Balance Sheet Safety
N/A
Net Debt / Equity
0.45
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
3.32
Net Debt / EBITDA
1.02
2.41%
Dividend Yield
3.01%
LOW: 4Ties: 1PG: 4
LOWPG

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
LOW

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.

PG

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 →
LOW
$-0.00
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$13.60B
Δ Market Cap
$-14.74
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
PG
$-0.00
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Market Cap Declined
Σ Retained
$17.32B
Δ Market Cap
$-8.25
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 →
LOW
100.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 100.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $207.81
Fair Value: $101593479341.45
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
PG
100.0% Margin of Safety
Price is 100.0% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $144.49
Fair Value: $220753045647.21
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
LOW

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $208?

-8.6%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies -10.8%

The market implies -8.6% Owner Earnings growth, below historical trends — potential opportunity.

Standard FCF implies a more demanding -10.8%, reflecting heavy growth investment expected to generate future returns.

PG

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $144?

-29.9%
Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

Market below historical growth — potential opportunity.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
LOW
80/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. Margin Stability 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.
PG
94/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat with strength across all dimensions. Revenue Predictability 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 5 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
LOW
8.81
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.
PG
-2.54
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 →
LOW
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 81.5%Retail & Other 18.4%
No. of Institutional Holders3,310
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.
PG
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 71.8%Retail & Other 28.2%
No. of Institutional Holders4,993
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 →
LOW
0
Buys (3M)
1
Buys (12M)
Total value (12M): $231,063
SIMKINS LAWRENCE
Director
$231,063
@ $231.06 · 2025-11-24
SIMKINS LAWRENCE
Director
$245,532
@ $245.53 · 2024-12-20
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
PG
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 →
LOW
3
Sells (3M)
9
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $38.11M
VAGELL MARGRETHE RAUB
Officer
$559,575
@ $223.83 · 2026-06-18
PRYOR JULIETTE WILLIAMS
Officer
$2.10M
@ $224.81 · 2026-06-17
DUPRE JANICE M.
Officer
$3.14M
@ $221.90 · 2026-06-16
VANCE QUONTA D
Officer
$2.67M
@ $257.54 · 2026-03-04
ELLISON MARVIN R
Chief Executive Officer
$4.70M
@ $261.17 · 2026-01-09
MCFARLAND JOSEPH MICHAEL III
Officer
$11.94M
@ $272.60 · 2025-09-11
SINK BRANDON J.
Chief Financial Officer
$2.20M
@ $268.58 · 2025-09-05
PRYOR JULIETTE WILLIAMS
Officer
$238,939
@ $257.20 · 2025-08-26
ELLISON MARVIN R
Chief Executive Officer
$10.56M
@ $264.10 · 2025-08-20
DUPRE JANICE M.
Officer
$350,039
@ $224.38 · 2025-06-10
PRYOR JULIETTE WILLIAMS
Officer
$257,077
@ $227.50 · 2025-06-03
VANCE QUONTA D
Officer
$1.97M
@ $274.37 · 2024-11-27
MCFARLAND JOSEPH MICHAEL III
Officer
$1.08M
@ $270.74 · 2024-10-03
GODBOLE SEEMANTINI P
Chief Technology Officer
$7.12M
@ $271.73 · 2024-10-03
VAGELL MARGRETHE RAUB
Officer
$1.56M
@ $271.45 · 2024-10-02
GRIGGS DAN CLAYTON JR.
Officer
$1.68M
@ $248.82 · 2024-09-12
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
PG
0
Sells (3M)
28
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $78.99M
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$917,199
@ $165.29 · 2026-02-27
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$288,454
@ $159.45 · 2026-02-19
AGUILAR MOSES VICTOR JAVIER
Officer
$2.46M
@ $162.28 · 2026-02-13
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$5.86M
@ $162.33 · 2026-02-12
MOELLER JON R
Officer and Director
$28.12M
@ $162.29 · 2026-02-12
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$2.06M
@ $160.31 · 2026-02-11
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$1.26M
@ $158.00 · 2026-02-04
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$14.50M
@ $151.15 · 2026-01-23
JANZARUK MATTHEW W.
Officer
$108,438
@ $149.57 · 2025-10-30
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$538,139
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
MOELLER JON R
Chief Executive Officer
$1.78M
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$491,252
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$74,594
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$366,574
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
JEJURIKAR SHAILESH
Chief Operating Officer
$606,796
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
SCHULTEN ANDRE
Chief Financial Officer
$647,289
@ $152.23 · 2025-10-02
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$156,835
@ $156.84 · 2025-08-29
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$1.61M
@ $158.16 · 2025-08-21
RAMAN SUNDAR G.
Officer
$1.51M
@ $158.16 · 2025-08-21
MOELLER JON R
Chief Executive Officer
$6.31M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$1.55M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
JANZARUK MATTHEW W.
Officer
$50,170
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$1.35M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
PURUSHOTHAMAN BALAJI
Officer
$95,308
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
WHALEY SUSAN STREET
Officer
$969,908
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
JEJURIKAR SHAILESH
Chief Operating Officer
$2.05M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
FRANCISCO MA. FATIMA
Officer
$1.43M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
SCHULTEN ANDRE
Chief Financial Officer
$1.83M
@ $157.27 · 2025-08-19
AGUILAR MOSES VICTOR JAVIER
Officer
$1.67M
@ $158.67 · 2025-05-05
DAVIS JENNIFER L
Officer
$161,384
@ $161.38 · 2025-04-29
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$6.08M
@ $173.68 · 2025-02-28
COOMBE GARY A
Officer
$3.09M
@ $171.66 · 2025-02-25
PRITCHARD MARC S
Officer
$14.82M
@ $163.84 · 2025-01-23
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 →
LOW
FearGreed
😨Fear(39/100)

"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.
PG
FearGreed
😐Neutral(48/100)

"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 →
LOW
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 (39)
PG
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 (48)
View LOW Full AnalysisView PG Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: LOW vs PG

Is Lowe's Companies, Inc. or Procter & Gamble Company (The) more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, PG trades at a 100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $220753045647 vs. price $144), compared to LOW's 100.0% margin of safety (intrinsic $101593479341 vs. $208).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Lowe's Companies, Inc. or Procter & Gamble Company (The)?

PG scores 94/100 (Wide moat), while LOW scores 80/100 (Wide moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Lowe's Companies, Inc. in financial distress?

LOW's Altman Z-Score of 2.0 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. PG scores 2.6 (Grey 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, Lowe's Companies, Inc. or Procter & Gamble Company (The)?

LOW earns 18.2% ROIC versus PG's 15.2%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Does Lowe's Companies, Inc. have accounting red flags?

LOW's Beneish M-Score of 8.8 flags it as a likely earnings manipulator (above the -1.78 threshold). By contrast, PG scores -2.5, within the normal range. The Beneish model detects aggressive accounting through eight financial ratios.

LOW vs PG: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io