ACI vs TGT

For growth investors, Albertsons Companies, Inc.

(ACI) is the stronger pick with 1. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). Albertsons Companies, Inc. (ACI) offers the better valuation at 9. 8x trailing P/E (7. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Albertsons Companies, Inc. (ACI) a "Buy" — based on 23 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Albertsons Companies, Inc.

(ACI) is the cheapest at 9. 8x versus Target Corporation at 16. 0x. On forward P/E, Albertsons Companies, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 1x.

Over the past 5 years, Albertsons Companies, Inc.

(ACI) delivered a total return of +32. 0%, compared to -29. 1% for Target Corporation (TGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TGT returned +108. 0% versus ACI's +66. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Albertsons Companies, Inc.

(ACI) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 33β versus Target Corporation's 0. 95β — meaning TGT is approximately -387% more volatile than ACI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Target Corporation (TGT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 4% for Albertsons Companies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Albertsons Companies, Inc.

(ACI) is pulling ahead at 1. 5% versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Target Corporation grew EPS -8. 2% year-over-year, compared to -26. 5% for Albertsons Companies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACI leads at 3. 8% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Target Corporation (TGT) is the more profitable company, earning 3.

5% net margin versus 1. 2% for Albertsons Companies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 3. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TGT leads at 4. 9% versus 1. 9% for ACI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TGT leads at 27. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Albertsons Companies, Inc.

(ACI) trades at 7. 1x forward P/E versus 16. 3x for Target Corporation — 9. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ACI: 22. 5% to $19. 63.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Target Corporation (TGT) offers the highest yield at 3. 5%, versus 3. 2% for Albertsons Companies, Inc. (ACI).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Albertsons Companies, Inc.

(ACI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 33), 3. 2% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ACI: +66. 7%, TGT: +108. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Consumer Defensive sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.