Compare Stocks › TTWO vs UNH

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (TTWO) vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (UNH): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, TTWO is undervalued at $190, with a DCF intrinsic value of $326 and a margin of safety of 42%. UNH is overvalued at $407, with an intrinsic value of $367 and a margin of safety of -11%. Of the two, TTWO has the wider margin of safety.

TTWO
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
$190.17
VS
UNH
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
$406.97

Rewards

TTWO
    UNH
    • ★UnitedHealth Group Incorporated scores 73/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.

    Risks

    TTWO
    • ⚠PEG ratio of 2.61 indicates the stock is expensive relative to its expected growth — the market may be pricing in more growth than analysts project.
    • ⚠6 insider sales totaling $2.9M with no purchases in the past 3 months — insiders are reducing their exposure.
    UNH
    • ⚠ROIC has declined by 6.9 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
    • ⚠Gross margin of 20.0% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
    • ⚠FCF yield of 7.3% suggests reasonable valuation assuming continued moderate growth.

    Key Valuation Metrics

    Learn more →
    TTWO
    UNH
    Valuation
    $1.26B
    Free Cash Flow
    $26.50B
    3.53%
    FCF Yield
    7.25%
    N/A
    Trailing P/E
    23.23
    18.50
    Forward P/E
    17.48
    Quality & Moat
    0.42%
    ROIC
    11.51%
    -9.04%
    ROE
    15.77%
    57.13%
    Gross Margin
    20.05%
    2.61
    PEG Ratio
    1.03
    Balance Sheet Safety
    0.31
    Net Debt / Equity
    0.43
    N/A
    Interest Coverage
    N/A
    1.46
    Net Debt / EBITDA
    1.58
    0.00%
    Dividend Yield
    2.28%
    TTWO: 3Ties: 1UNH: 7
    TTWOUNH

    Historical Fundamentals

    Learn more →
    TTWO
    No data available for this metric.
    UNH

    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 →
    TTWO
    N/A
    Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
    Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
    Σ Retained
    $-8.52B
    Δ Market Cap
    +$8.07B
    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
    UNH
    $-7.37
    created per $1 retained over 3 years
    Market Cap Declined
    Σ Retained
    $26.63B
    Δ Market Cap
    $-196.16B
    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 →
    TTWO
    41.6% Margin of Safety
    Price is 41.6% below estimated fair value
    Current Price: $190.17
    Fair Value: $325.90
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued
    UNH
    10.8% Overvalued
    Price is 10.8% above estimated fair value
    Current Price: $406.97
    Fair Value: $367.30
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued

    Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

    Learn more →
    TTWO

    What growth rate is the market pricing in at $190?

    +18.7%
    Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
    Standard FCF implies +12.8%
    UNH

    What growth rate is the market pricing in at $407?

    +14.2%
    Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
    Standard FCF implies +4.2%

    The market implies +14.2% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

    Standard FCF implies a demanding +4.2%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

    Economic Moat Score

    Learn more →
    TTWO
    39/100
    No Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    No durable moat detected, though reinvestment efficiency shows some competitive positioning. The business lacks consistent evidence of sustainable advantages.

    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.
    UNH
    73/100
    Wide Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. 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 4 years of fundamental data.

    Forensic Accounting

    Learn more →
    TTWO

    Insufficient data for Beneish M-Score calculation (requires 2+ years).

    UNH
    -2.45
    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 →
    TTWO
    Insiders 1.8%Institutions 100.4%
    No. of Institutional Holders1,554
    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.
    UNH
    Insiders 0.2%Institutions 89.6%Retail & Other 10.1%
    No. of Institutional Holders4,333
    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 →
    TTWO
    0
    Buys (3M)
    0
    Buys (12M)
    No open market insider purchases found.
    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
    UNH
    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 →
    TTWO
    6
    Sells (3M)
    25
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $15.17M
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $98,586
    @ $203.69 · 2026-10-02
    GORDON WILLIAM BINGHAM
    Director
    $2.02M
    @ $202.39 · 2026-09-29
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $361,055
    @ $217.37 · 2026-09-03
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $290,563
    @ $217.65 · 2026-09-02
    SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
    Director
    $88,694
    @ $245.01 · 2026-08-17
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $31,116
    @ $245.01 · 2026-08-17
    MOSES JON J
    Director
    $122,305
    @ $244.61 · 2026-06-22
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $1.02M
    @ $230.00 · 2026-06-16
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $950,515
    @ $215.00 · 2026-06-15
    MOSES JON J
    Director
    $107,608
    @ $215.22 · 2026-06-15
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $1.89M
    @ $214.00 · 2026-06-08
    DORNEMANN MICHAEL
    Director
    $249,790
    @ $217.02 · 2026-06-04
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $4.63M
    @ $219.61 · 2026-06-02
    SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
    Director
    $85,548
    @ $229.35 · 2026-06-01
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $28,592
    @ $218.26 · 2026-05-29
    GORDON WILLIAM BINGHAM
    Director
    $521,725
    @ $208.69 · 2026-03-09
    DORNEMANN MICHAEL
    Director
    $296,195
    @ $213.09 · 2026-03-05
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $248,906
    @ $213.47 · 2026-03-02
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $535,637
    @ $213.57 · 2026-03-02
    GORDON WILLIAM BINGHAM
    Director
    $522,525
    @ $209.01 · 2026-03-02
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $30,183
    @ $194.73 · 2026-02-18
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $399,953
    @ $248.11 · 2025-12-02
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $274,658
    @ $248.11 · 2025-12-02
    SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
    Director
    $321,664
    @ $238.27 · 2025-11-18
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $42,790
    @ $235.11 · 2025-11-17
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $2.50M
    @ $250.00 · 2025-09-08
    MOSES JON J
    Director
    $239,570
    @ $239.57 · 2025-09-04
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $474,110
    @ $238.73 · 2025-09-03
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $2.77M
    @ $239.57 · 2025-09-02
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $4.61M
    @ $230.64 · 2025-08-28
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $5.11M
    @ $227.47 · 2025-08-21
    SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
    Director
    $528,868
    @ $227.47 · 2025-08-21
    SLATOFF KARL
    President
    $11.16M
    @ $227.68 · 2025-08-21
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $46,227
    @ $233.47 · 2025-08-18
    MOSES JON J
    Director
    $231,330
    @ $231.33 · 2025-08-15
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $8.95M
    @ $225.22 · 2025-06-02
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $6.09M
    @ $225.22 · 2025-06-02
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $45,106
    @ $225.53 · 2025-06-02
    SHERESKY MICHAEL J
    Director
    $37,057
    @ $214.20 · 2025-03-06
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $175,118
    @ $211.24 · 2025-03-03
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $121,885
    @ $211.24 · 2025-03-03
    SLATOFF KARL
    President
    $7.02M
    @ $208.13 · 2025-02-25
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $262,197
    @ $187.95 · 2024-12-03
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $212,221
    @ $187.64 · 2024-12-02
    EMERSON DANIEL P
    Officer
    $818,545
    @ $176.79 · 2024-11-08
    SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
    Director
    $358,340
    @ $179.17 · 2024-11-08
    GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
    Chief Financial Officer
    $8.76M
    @ $175.05 · 2024-11-08
    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
    UNH
    2
    Sells (3M)
    3
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $944,910
    CONWAY PATRICK HUGH
    Officer
    $455,910
    @ $390.00 · 2026-08-21
    CONWAY PATRICK HUGH
    Officer
    $205,000
    @ $410.00 · 2026-08-05
    CONWAY PATRICK HUGH
    Officer
    $284,000
    @ $355.00 · 2026-04-23
    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 →
    TTWO
    FearGreed
    😨Fear(32/100)

    "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.
    UNH
    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 →
    TTWO
    ⚪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 (32)
    UNH
    ⚪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 TTWO Full AnalysisView UNH Full Analysis

    Frequently Asked Questions: TTWO vs UNH

    Is Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. or UnitedHealth Group Incorporated more undervalued in 2026?▼

    Based on our discounted cash flow model, TTWO trades at a 41.6% margin of safety (intrinsic value $326 vs. price $190), compared to UNH's -10.8% margin of safety (intrinsic $367 vs. $407).

    Which stock has a wider economic moat, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. or UnitedHealth Group Incorporated?▼

    UNH scores 73/100 (Wide moat), while TTWO scores 39/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

    Is UnitedHealth Group Incorporated in financial distress?▼

    UNH's Altman Z-Score of 2.9 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. TTWO scores 3.3 (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, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. or UnitedHealth Group Incorporated?▼

    UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (UNH) generates a 7.3% free cash flow yield, compared to Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.'s 3.5%. 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, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. or UnitedHealth Group Incorporated?▼

    UNH earns 11.5% ROIC versus TTWO's 0.4%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

    TTWO vs UNH: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026? | SafetyMargin.io