Compare StocksTTWO vs UNH

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

As of 2026-06-19, TTWO is undervalued at $239, with a DCF intrinsic value of $329 and a margin of safety of 27%. UNH is fairly valued at $401, with an intrinsic value of $376 and a margin of safety of -7%. Of the two, TTWO has the wider margin of safety.

TTWO
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
$239.28
VS
UNH
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
$400.96

Rewards

TTWO
  • Altman Z-Score of 4.18 indicates very low bankruptcy risk — the company is firmly in the safe zone.
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 3.21 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 $7.8M 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 18.8% is low, suggesting a competitive or commodity-like market with limited pricing power.
  • Free cash flow has declined at a 11.8% CAGR over the past 4 years — a concerning trend.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
TTWO
UNH
Valuation
$1.45B
Free Cash Flow
$17.69B
3.26%
FCF Yield
4.86%
N/A
Trailing P/E
30.17
23.72
Forward P/E
19.18
Quality & Moat
1.89%
ROIC
15.60%
-10.56%
ROE
12.18%
57.67%
Gross Margin
18.80%
3.21
PEG Ratio
1.41
Balance Sheet Safety
0.28
Net Debt / Equity
0.44
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
1.23
Net Debt / EBITDA
2.18
0.00%
Dividend Yield
2.21%
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
+$17.18B
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
27.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 27.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $239.28
Fair Value: $329.01
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
UNH
6.6% Overvalued
Price is 6.6% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $400.96
Fair Value: $376.14
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 $239?

+21.7%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +13.8%
UNH

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $401?

+14.1%
Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
Standard FCF implies +9.8%

The market implies +14.1% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

Standard FCF implies a demanding +9.8%, 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 1.4%Institutions 93.9%Retail & Other 4.8%
No. of Institutional Holders1,491
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 85.9%Retail & Other 13.8%
No. of Institutional Holders4,020
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)
HEMSLEY STEPHEN J
Chief Executive Officer
$25.02M
@ $288.57 · 2025-05-16
REX JOHN F
President
$5.00M
@ $291.12 · 2025-05-16
GIL KRISTEN
Director
$1.00M
@ $271.17 · 2025-05-15
FLYNN TIMOTHY PATRICK
Director
$491,786
@ $320.80 · 2025-05-14
NOSEWORTHY JOHN H
Director
$93,647
@ $312.16 · 2025-05-14
FLYNN TIMOTHY PATRICK
Director
$511,575
@ $511.57 · 2025-01-17
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)
26
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $38.71M
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$950,515
@ $215.00 · 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
GORDON WILLIAM BINGHAM
Director
$522,525
@ $209.01 · 2026-03-02
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$248,906
@ $213.47 · 2026-03-02
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$535,637
@ $213.57 · 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
SLATOFF KARL
President
$11.16M
@ $227.68 · 2025-08-21
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$5.11M
@ $227.47 · 2025-08-21
SRINIVASAN LAVERNE EVANS
Director
$528,868
@ $227.47 · 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
GOLDSTEIN LAINIE
Chief Financial Officer
$8.76M
@ $175.05 · 2024-11-08
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
$182,177
@ $158.14 · 2024-09-03
EMERSON DANIEL P
Officer
$124,931
@ $158.14 · 2024-09-03
SHERESKY MICHAEL J
Director
$28,618
@ $149.83 · 2024-08-19
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
UNH
1
Sells (3M)
1
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $284,000
CONWAY PATRICK HUGH M.D.
Officer
$284,000
@ $355.00 · 2026-04-23
CONWAY PATRICK HUGH M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
$179,645
@ $305.00 · 2025-06-10
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
😏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.
UNH
FearGreed
😏Greed(68/100)

"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: Greed (61)
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 (68)
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 27.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $329 vs. price $239), compared to UNH's -6.6% margin of safety (intrinsic $376 vs. $401).

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 4.2 (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 4.9% free cash flow yield, compared to Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.'s 3.3%. 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 15.6% ROIC versus TTWO's 1.9%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.