Compare StocksQCOM vs TRGP

QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM) vs Targa Resources Corp. (TRGP): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-06-19, QCOM is overvalued at $226, with a DCF intrinsic value of $128 and a margin of safety of -76%. TRGP is overvalued at $259, with an intrinsic value of $50 and a margin of safety of -422%. Of the two, QCOM has the wider margin of safety.

QCOM
QUALCOMM Incorporated
$226.11
VS
TRGP
Targa Resources Corp.
$258.58

Rewards

QCOM
  • QUALCOMM Incorporated has maintained ROIC above 15% for 4 consecutive years, indicating a durable competitive advantage.
  • QUALCOMM Incorporated scores 73/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with reinvestment efficiency as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • Free cash flow has grown at a 23.3% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
TRGP
  • Targa Resources Corp. has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
  • Return on equity has consistently exceeded 20% over 4 years, indicating efficient use of shareholder capital.
  • Each dollar of retained earnings has created $2.97 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

QCOM
  • FCF yield of 5.4% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.
  • 15 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.
TRGP
  • High leverage (5.82x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • Insiders have sold $2.7M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
  • Free cash flow has declined at a 17.7% CAGR over the past 4 years — a concerning trend.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
QCOM
TRGP
Valuation
$12.82B
Free Cash Flow
$-318.55M
5.38%
FCF Yield
-0.57%
24.34
Trailing P/E
26.41
21.20
Forward P/E
21.01
Quality & Moat
18.22%
ROIC
12.21%
36.08%
ROE
74.10%
54.80%
Gross Margin
41.77%
0.91
PEG Ratio
1.25
Balance Sheet Safety
0.20
Net Debt / Equity
5.82
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
0.42
Net Debt / EBITDA
3.65
1.72%
Dividend Yield
1.64%
QCOM: 8Ties: 3TRGP: 1
QCOMTRGP

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
QCOM

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.

TRGP

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 →
QCOM
$5.06
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$11.96B
Δ Market Cap
+$60.46B
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
TRGP
$8.45
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$2.72B
Δ Market Cap
+$22.99B
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 →
QCOM
178.3% Overvalued
Price is 178.3% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $226.11
Fair Value: $81.25
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
TRGP
132.2% Overvalued
Price is 132.2% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $258.58
Fair Value: $111.36
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
QCOM

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $226?

+17.5%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +7.0%

The market implies +17.5% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +7.0%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

TRGP

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
QCOM
73/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by reinvestment efficiency. Revenue Predictability 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.
TRGP
54/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with roic consistency 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 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
QCOM
-3.16
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.
TRGP
-3.07
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 →
QCOM
Insiders 0.1%Institutions 84.8%Retail & Other 15.1%
No. of Institutional Holders3,615
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.
TRGP
Insiders 1.4%Institutions 97.3%Retail & Other 1.3%
No. of Institutional Holders1,409
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 →
QCOM
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
TRGP
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 →
QCOM
3
Sells (3M)
15
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $12.65M
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$493,380
@ $197.35 · 2026-06-11
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$529,741
@ $211.90 · 2026-05-12
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$325,854
@ $130.34 · 2026-04-13
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$330,815
@ $132.33 · 2026-03-12
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$458,799
@ $137.65 · 2026-02-06
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$577,620
@ $173.30 · 2026-01-02
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$2.20M
@ $175.29 · 2025-12-19
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$2.83M
@ $178.01 · 2025-12-16
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$1.28M
@ $178.03 · 2025-12-16
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$567,702
@ $170.33 · 2025-11-07
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$1.38M
@ $166.06 · 2025-10-20
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$522,808
@ $156.86 · 2025-09-02
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$122,463
@ $154.82 · 2025-08-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$493,610
@ $148.10 · 2025-08-04
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$537,560
@ $161.28 · 2025-07-02
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$486,965
@ $146.10 · 2025-06-02
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$120,808
@ $153.70 · 2025-05-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$465,846
@ $139.77 · 2025-05-05
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$91,442
@ $141.11 · 2025-04-09
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$119,900
@ $132.63 · 2025-04-08
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$235,262
@ $132.10 · 2025-04-04
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$523,292
@ $156.82 · 2025-03-03
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$130,074
@ $174.83 · 2025-02-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$509,397
@ $169.80 · 2025-02-12
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$3.28M
@ $169.83 · 2025-02-10
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$463,851
@ $154.62 · 2025-01-02
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$409,056
@ $158.12 · 2024-12-16
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$1.67M
@ $160.59 · 2024-12-10
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$1.24M
@ $160.59 · 2024-12-10
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$484,617
@ $161.54 · 2024-12-05
MARTIN NEIL A
Officer
$202,120
@ $155.00 · 2024-11-21
PALKHIWALA AKASH J
Chief Operating Officer
$491,349
@ $163.78 · 2024-11-14
THOMPSON JAMES H.
Chief Technology Officer
$1.38M
@ $172.09 · 2024-11-08
CHAPLIN ANN C
General Counsel
$313,779
@ $165.06 · 2024-11-04
ROGERS ALEXANDER H
Officer
$539,157
@ $166.15 · 2024-10-02
THOMPSON JAMES H.
Chief Technology Officer
$1.36M
@ $169.80 · 2024-10-01
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
TRGP
1
Sells (3M)
9
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $28.68M
CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
Director
$2.71M
@ $255.96 · 2026-05-12
MURARO ROBERT M
Officer
$5.93M
@ $241.34 · 2026-03-05
BRANSTETTER BENJAMIN J
Officer
$778,124
@ $238.83 · 2026-03-02
MCDONIE PATRICK J
Officer
$7.55M
@ $239.36 · 2026-03-02
COOKSEN LINDSEY M
Director
$100,797
@ $231.72 · 2026-02-26
PRYOR DOUGLAS SCOTT
Officer
$4.01M
@ $228.92 · 2026-02-25
KNEALE JENNIFER R
President
$6.79M
@ $230.12 · 2026-02-24
CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
Director
$311,619
@ $229.30 · 2026-02-24
SHRADER GERALD R
General Counsel
$498,328
@ $181.21 · 2025-12-05
COOKSEN LINDSEY M
Director
$208,042
@ $198.14 · 2025-02-28
CHUNG PAUL W
Director
$1.26M
@ $202.91 · 2025-02-28
KNEALE JENNIFER R
Officer
$5.75M
@ $192.42 · 2025-02-25
MELOY MATTHEW J
Chief Executive Officer
$9.53M
@ $195.08 · 2025-02-25
DAVIS WATERS S IV
Director
$429,802
@ $196.26 · 2025-02-25
CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
Director
$378,167
@ $194.23 · 2025-02-25
MURARO ROBERT M
Officer
$505,736
@ $202.29 · 2024-12-02
BOUSHKA JULIE H.
Officer
$1.91M
@ $190.52 · 2024-11-15
BOUSHKA JULIE H.
Officer
$621,809
@ $190.74 · 2024-11-08
CHUNG PAUL W
Director
$3.43M
@ $190.03 · 2024-11-08
CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
Director
$1.14M
@ $190.68 · 2024-11-08
MURARO ROBERT M
Officer
$365,504
@ $146.20 · 2024-09-03
MURARO ROBERT M
Officer
$1.40M
@ $140.04 · 2024-08-14
CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
Director
$688,134
@ $137.63 · 2024-08-12
SHRADER GERALD R
General Counsel
$408,195
@ $136.06 · 2024-08-09
BOUSHKA JULIE H.
Officer
$1.87M
@ $134.74 · 2024-08-08
BOUSHKA JULIE H.
Officer
$160,146
@ $132.02 · 2024-08-06
MURARO ROBERT M
Officer
$1.29M
@ $130.31 · 2024-06-28
MURARO ROBERT M
Officer
$13,000
@ $130.00 · 2024-06-26
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 →
QCOM
FearGreed
😐Neutral(50/100)

"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.
TRGP
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.

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 →
QCOM
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 (50)
TRGP
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)
View QCOM Full AnalysisView TRGP Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: QCOM vs TRGP

Is QUALCOMM Incorporated or Targa Resources Corp. more undervalued in 2026?

Based on our discounted cash flow model, QCOM trades at a -76.1% margin of safety (intrinsic value $128 vs. price $226), compared to TRGP's -421.7% margin of safety (intrinsic $50 vs. $259).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, QUALCOMM Incorporated or Targa Resources Corp.?

QCOM scores 73/100 (Wide moat), while TRGP scores 54/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Targa Resources Corp. in financial distress?

TRGP's Altman Z-Score of 2.3 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. QCOM scores 6.5 (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, QUALCOMM Incorporated or Targa Resources Corp.?

QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM) generates a 5.4% free cash flow yield, compared to Targa Resources Corp.'s -0.6%. 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, QUALCOMM Incorporated or Targa Resources Corp.?

QCOM earns 18.2% ROIC versus TRGP's 12.2%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, QUALCOMM Incorporated's or Targa Resources Corp.'s?

QCOM's dividend earns a safety score of 84/100 (Very Safe), compared to TRGP's 64/100 (Safe). QCOM has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.