Food Distribution
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AVO vs WMT vs SYY vs TGT vs COST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Food Distribution
Discount Stores
Discount Stores
AVO vs WMT vs SYY vs TGT vs COST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Food Distribution | Specialty Retail | Food Distribution | Discount Stores | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $942M | $1.04T | $34.91B | $57.36B | $448.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.34B | $703.06B | $83.57B | $106.25B | $286.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $33M | $22.91B | $1.74B | $4.04B | $8.55B |
| Gross Margin | 12.0% | 24.9% | 18.5% | 27.3% | 12.9% |
| Operating Margin | 4.8% | 4.1% | 3.6% | 5.3% | 3.8% |
| Forward P/E | 20.2x | 44.7x | 15.9x | 15.7x | 49.5x |
| Total Debt | $201M | $67.09B | $14.49B | $5.59B | $8.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $65M | $10.73B | $1.07B | $5.49B | $14.16B |
AVO vs WMT vs SYY vs TGT vs COST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mission Produce, In… (AVO) | 100 | 99.2 | -0.8% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 285.3 | +185.3% |
| Sysco Corporation (SYY) | 100 | 131.0 | +31.0% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 82.3 | -17.7% |
| Costco Wholesale Co… (COST) | 100 | 282.1 | +182.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AVO vs WMT vs SYY vs TGT vs COST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AVO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 12.7%, EPS growth 1.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 10.0%
- 12.7% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7%
WMT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 0.12, yield 0.7%
- Beta 0.12 vs TGT's 0.95
SYY is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency and defensive.
- PEG 0.29 vs WMT's 4.06
- Beta 0.47, yield 2.8%, current ratio 1.21x
- Lower P/E (15.9x vs 49.5x), PEG 0.29 vs 3.28
TGT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and dividends.
- 3.8% margin vs SYY's 2.1%
- 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs SYY's 2.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
- +36.6% vs COST's +1.0%
COST is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 6.2% 10Y total return vs WMT's 499.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.13, Low D/E 28.0%, current ratio 1.03x
- 10.7% ROA vs AVO's 3.3%, ROIC 34.5% vs 7.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.7% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.9x vs 49.5x), PEG 0.29 vs 3.28 | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.8% margin vs SYY's 2.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs TGT's 0.95 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs SYY's 2.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +36.6% vs COST's +1.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.7% ROA vs AVO's 3.3%, ROIC 34.5% vs 7.2% |
AVO vs WMT vs SYY vs TGT vs COST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AVO vs WMT vs SYY vs TGT vs COST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
WMT leads in 2 of 6 categories
TGT leads 1 • COST leads 1 • AVO leads 0 • SYY leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TGT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WMT is the larger business by revenue, generating $703.1B annually — 526.4x AVO's $1.3B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 3.8% (TGT) to 2.1% (SYY). On growth, COST holds the edge at +9.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.3B | $703.1B | $83.6B | $106.2B | $286.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $91M | $42.8B | $4.0B | $8.7B | $13.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $33M | $22.9B | $1.7B | $4.0B | $8.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $38M | $15.3B | $2.0B | $2.9B | $9.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +12.0% | +24.9% | +18.5% | +27.3% | +12.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +4.8% | +4.1% | +3.6% | +5.3% | +3.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.5% | +3.3% | +2.1% | +3.8% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.9% | +2.2% | +2.4% | +2.8% | +3.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -16.6% | +5.8% | +4.7% | +3.2% | +9.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -118.2% | +35.1% | -13.4% | +23.7% | -2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — SYY and TGT each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.5x trailing earnings, TGT trades at a 72% valuation discount to COST's 55.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SYY offers better value at 0.36x vs AVO's 4.76x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $942M | $1.04T | $34.9B | $57.4B | $448.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.1B | $1.09T | $48.3B | $57.5B | $442.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 25.09x | 47.69x | 19.54x | 15.49x | 55.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 20.15x | 44.71x | 15.88x | 15.74x | 49.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 4.76x | 4.33x | 0.36x | — | 3.68x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.16x | 24.85x | 11.58x | 7.26x | 34.55x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.68x | 1.46x | 0.43x | 0.55x | 1.63x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.53x | 10.45x | 19.23x | 3.55x | 15.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 25.33x | 24.97x | 19.60x | 20.23x | 57.24x |
Profitability & Efficiency
COST leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
SYY delivers a 80.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $81 in annual profit, vs $5 for AVO. COST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.28x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SYY's 7.81x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), COST scores 7/9 vs SYY's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +5.5% | +22.3% | +80.7% | +26.1% | +28.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +3.3% | +7.9% | +6.4% | +6.9% | +10.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.2% | +14.7% | +15.7% | +16.7% | +34.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +8.6% | +17.5% | +19.0% | +13.6% | +27.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.32x | 0.67x | 7.81x | 0.35x | 0.28x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $136M | $56.4B | $13.4B | $104M | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $65M | $10.7B | $1.1B | $5.5B | $14.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $201M | $67.1B | $14.5B | $5.6B | $8.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 10.85x | 11.85x | 4.35x | 12.40x | 77.52x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WMT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WMT five years ago would be worth $28,695 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,700 for AVO. Over the past 12 months, TGT leads with a +36.6% total return vs COST's +1.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WMT at 37.6% vs TGT's -3.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +14.9% | +15.7% | +1.9% | +26.4% | +18.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +29.8% | +32.7% | +6.4% | +36.6% | +1.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +11.6% | +160.5% | +4.0% | -11.0% | +108.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -33.0% | +186.9% | -3.9% | -31.6% | +172.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -3.6% | +499.5% | +82.2% | +99.5% | +625.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +3.7% | +37.6% | +1.3% | -3.8% | +27.8% |
Risk & Volatility
WMT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
WMT is the less volatile stock with a 0.12 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TGT's 0.95 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WMT currently trades 96.7% from its 52-week high vs SYY's 79.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.32x | 0.12x | 0.46x | 0.95x | 0.13x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $15.53 | $134.69 | $91.69 | $133.07 | $1067.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $10.00 | $91.89 | $68.19 | $83.44 | $846.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +85.6% | +96.7% | +79.5% | +94.6% | +94.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.3 | 55.9 | 41.7 | 61.4 | 47.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 925K | 17.2M | 4.7M | 4.5M | 1.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — WMT and SYY and TGT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AVO as "Buy", WMT as "Buy", SYY as "Buy", TGT as "Hold", COST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 42.9% upside for AVO (target: $19) vs -8.4% for TGT (target: $115). For income investors, TGT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.58% vs COST's 0.48%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $19.00 | $137.04 | $90.44 | $115.31 | $1070.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 64 | 30 | 59 | 58 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.7% | +2.8% | +3.6% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 37 | 37 | 22 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.94 | $2.04 | $4.51 | $4.91 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.6% | +0.8% | +3.6% | +0.7% | +0.2% |
WMT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). TGT leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
AVO vs WMT vs SYY vs TGT vs COST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Mission Produce, Inc.
(AVO) is the stronger pick with 12. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). Target Corporation (TGT) offers the better valuation at 15. 5x trailing P/E (15. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Mission Produce, Inc. (AVO) a "Buy" — based on 6 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.
02Which has the better valuation — AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST?
On trailing P/E, Target Corporation (TGT) is the cheapest at 15.
5x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 55. 6x. On forward P/E, Target Corporation is actually cheaper at 15. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Sysco Corporation wins at 0. 29x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST?
Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) delivered a total return of +186. 9%, compared to -33. 0% for Mission Produce, Inc. (AVO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: COST returned +625. 0% versus AVO's -3. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Walmart Inc.
(WMT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 12β versus Target Corporation's 0. 95β — meaning TGT is approximately 717% more volatile than WMT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 28% versus 8% for Sysco Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Mission Produce, Inc.
(AVO) is pulling ahead at 12. 7% versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Walmart Inc. grew EPS 13. 3% year-over-year, compared to -8. 2% for Target Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, AVO leads at 10. 0% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST?
Target Corporation (TGT) is the more profitable company, earning 3.
5% net margin versus 2. 2% for Sysco Corporation — meaning it keeps 3. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AVO leads at 5. 1% versus 3. 8% for COST. 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.
07Is AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Sysco Corporation (SYY) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 29x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Target Corporation (TGT) trades at 15. 7x forward P/E versus 49. 5x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 33. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AVO: 42. 9% to $19. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST?
In this comparison, TGT (3.
6% yield), SYY (2. 8% yield), WMT (0. 7% yield), COST (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. AVO does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AVO or WMT or SYY or TGT or COST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 12), 0. 7% yield, +499. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WMT: +499. 5%, AVO: -3. 6%), 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.
10What are the main differences between AVO and WMT and SYY and TGT and COST?
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.
In terms of investment character: AVO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; WMT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; SYY is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; TGT is a mid-cap deep-value stock; COST is a large-cap quality compounder stock. WMT, SYY, TGT pay a dividend while AVO, COST do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.