Specialty Retail
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BBBY vs WSM vs TGT vs W vs AMZN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
Specialty Retail
Specialty Retail
BBBY vs WSM vs TGT vs W vs AMZN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Specialty Retail | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores | Specialty Retail | Specialty Retail |
| Market Cap | $388M | $22.60B | $57.36B | $8.71B | $2.92T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.06B | $7.81B | $106.25B | $12.66B | $742.78B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-61M | $1.09B | $4.04B | $-305M | $90.80B |
| Gross Margin | 24.8% | 46.2% | 27.3% | 30.1% | 50.6% |
| Operating Margin | -5.3% | 18.1% | 5.3% | 1.1% | 11.5% |
| Forward P/E | — | 21.1x | 15.7x | 23.6x | 34.8x |
| Total Debt | $22M | $1.46B | $5.59B | $4.07B | $152.99B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $175M | $1.02B | $5.49B | $1.48B | $86.81B |
BBBY vs WSM vs TGT vs W vs AMZN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bed Bath & Beyond I… (BBBY) | 100 | 29.2 | -70.8% |
| Williams-Sonoma, In… (WSM) | 100 | 441.0 | +341.0% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 102.9 | +2.9% |
| Wayfair Inc. (W) | 100 | 38.6 | -61.4% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 222.1 | +122.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BBBY vs WSM vs TGT vs W vs AMZN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, BBBY doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
WSM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- 13.9% margin vs BBBY's -5.8%
- 20.6% ROA vs BBBY's -15.3%, ROIC 44.3% vs -91.0%
TGT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 0.95, yield 3.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.95, Low D/E 34.6%, current ratio 0.94x
- Beta 0.95, yield 3.6%, current ratio 0.94x
- Lower P/E (15.7x vs 21.1x)
W ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +117.4% vs WSM's +18.2%
AMZN is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 12.4%, EPS growth 29.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.7%
- 7.0% 10Y total return vs WSM's 5.9%
- PEG 1.24 vs WSM's 1.36
- 12.4% revenue growth vs BBBY's -25.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.4% revenue growth vs BBBY's -25.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.7x vs 21.1x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.9% margin vs BBBY's -5.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.95 vs BBBY's 3.12 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WSM's 1.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +117.4% vs WSM's +18.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 20.6% ROA vs BBBY's -15.3%, ROIC 44.3% vs -91.0% |
BBBY vs WSM vs TGT vs W vs AMZN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BBBY vs WSM vs TGT vs W vs AMZN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
WSM leads in 2 of 6 categories
TGT leads 1 • BBBY leads 0 • W leads 0 • AMZN leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — WSM and AMZN each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 700.3x BBBY's $1.1B. WSM is the more profitable business, keeping 13.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BBBY's -5.8%. On growth, AMZN holds the edge at +16.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.1B | $7.8B | $106.2B | $12.7B | $742.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$36M | $1.5B | $8.7B | $428M | $155.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$61M | $1.1B | $4.0B | -$305M | $90.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$76M | $1.1B | $2.9B | $456M | -$2.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +24.8% | +46.2% | +27.3% | +30.1% | +50.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -5.3% | +18.1% | +5.3% | +1.1% | +11.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -5.8% | +13.9% | +3.8% | -2.4% | +12.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -7.2% | +13.6% | +2.8% | +3.6% | -0.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.9% | -4.3% | +3.2% | +7.4% | +16.6% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +67.7% | -1.1% | +23.7% | +10.1% | +74.8% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — BBBY and TGT and W each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.5x trailing earnings, TGT trades at a 59% valuation discount to AMZN's 37.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WSM offers better value at 1.34x vs AMZN's 1.35x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $388M | $22.6B | $57.4B | $8.7B | $2.92T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $235M | $23.0B | $57.5B | $11.3B | $2.98T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.80x | 20.76x | 15.49x | -27.36x | 37.82x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 21.08x | 15.74x | 23.63x | 34.77x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.34x | — | — | 1.35x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 13.98x | 7.26x | 35.11x | 20.47x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.37x | 2.89x | 0.55x | 0.70x | 4.07x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.48x | 10.85x | 3.55x | — | 7.14x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 21.41x | 20.23x | 18.78x | 378.98x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WSM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
WSM delivers a 51.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $51 in annual profit, vs $-32 for BBBY. BBBY carries lower financial leverage with a 0.10x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WSM's 0.70x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), W scores 7/9 vs WSM's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -32.4% | +51.5% | +26.1% | — | +23.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -15.3% | +20.6% | +6.9% | -9.6% | +11.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -91.0% | +44.3% | +16.7% | — | +14.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -29.8% | +41.4% | +13.6% | +1.4% | +15.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.10x | 0.70x | 0.35x | — | 0.37x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$153M | $437M | $104M | $2.6B | $66.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $175M | $1.0B | $5.5B | $1.5B | $86.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $22M | $1.5B | $5.6B | $4.1B | $153.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 12.40x | -0.63x | 39.96x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WSM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WSM five years ago would be worth $20,735 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $666 for BBBY. Over the past 12 months, W leads with a +117.4% total return vs WSM's +18.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WSM at 48.4% vs BBBY's -35.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.3% | -1.5% | +26.4% | -37.9% | +19.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +40.3% | +18.2% | +36.6% | +117.4% | +43.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -73.0% | +227.0% | -11.0% | +65.6% | +156.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -93.3% | +107.3% | -31.6% | -78.3% | +64.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -48.2% | +587.8% | +99.5% | +67.0% | +697.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -35.4% | +48.4% | -3.8% | +18.3% | +36.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TGT and AMZN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TGT is the less volatile stock with a 0.95 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BBBY's 3.12 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AMZN currently trades 97.3% from its 52-week high vs BBBY's 42.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.12x | 1.49x | 0.95x | 2.85x | 1.51x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $12.65 | $221.81 | $133.07 | $119.98 | $278.56 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.74 | $147.39 | $83.44 | $29.75 | $185.01 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +42.4% | +82.7% | +94.6% | +55.2% | +97.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 52.1 | 48.9 | 61.4 | 38.6 | 81.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.7M | 1.2M | 4.5M | 3.6M | 45.5M |
Analyst Outlook
TGT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BBBY as "Hold", WSM as "Hold", TGT as "Hold", W as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 51.2% upside for W (target: $100) vs -8.4% for TGT (target: $115). For income investors, TGT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.58% vs WSM's 1.40%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $7.75 | $200.25 | $115.31 | $100.07 | $306.77 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 41 | 56 | 59 | 57 | 94 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.4% | +3.6% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 20 | 22 | 1 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.57 | $4.51 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.6% | +3.8% | +0.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
WSM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). TGT leads in 1 (Analyst Outlook). 3 tied.
BBBY vs WSM vs TGT vs W vs AMZN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is the stronger pick with 12. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -25. 1% for Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY). 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 Wayfair Inc. (W) a "Buy" — based on 57 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 — BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN?
On trailing P/E, Target Corporation (TGT) is the cheapest at 15.
5x versus Amazon. com, Inc. at 37. 8x. 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: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 1. 24x versus Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 's 1. 36x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN?
Over the past 5 years, Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
(WSM) delivered a total return of +107. 3%, compared to -93. 3% for Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +697. 8% versus BBBY's -48. 2%. 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 — BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Target Corporation (TGT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
95β versus Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. 's 3. 12β — meaning BBBY is approximately 227% more volatile than TGT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 10% versus 70% for Williams-Sonoma, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is pulling ahead at 12. 4% versus -25. 1% for Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. grew EPS 74. 6% year-over-year, compared to -8. 2% for Target Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMZN leads at 11. 7% 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 — BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN?
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
(WSM) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 9% net margin versus -8. 1% for Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. — meaning it keeps 13. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WSM leads at 18. 1% versus -5. 9% for BBBY. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AMZN leads at 50. 3%, 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 BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN 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, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 24x versus Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 's 1. 36x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Target Corporation (TGT) trades at 15. 7x forward P/E versus 34. 8x for Amazon. com, Inc. — 19. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for W: 51. 2% to $100. 07.
08Which pays a better dividend — BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN?
In this comparison, TGT (3.
6% yield), WSM (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. BBBY, W, AMZN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BBBY or WSM or TGT or W or AMZN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Target Corporation (TGT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
95), 3. 6% yield). Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) carries a higher beta of 3. 12 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (TGT: +99. 5%, BBBY: -48. 2%), 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 BBBY and WSM and TGT and W and AMZN?
These companies operate in different sectors (BBBY (Consumer Cyclical) and WSM (Consumer Cyclical) and TGT (Consumer Defensive) and W (Consumer Cyclical) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BBBY is a small-cap quality compounder stock; WSM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; TGT is a mid-cap deep-value stock; W is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. WSM, TGT pay a dividend while BBBY, W, AMZN 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.