Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances |
| Market Cap | $18M | $1.04T | $57.36B | $295M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $38M | $703.06B | $106.25B | $458M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-25M | $22.91B | $4.04B | $22M |
| Gross Margin | 9.5% | 24.9% | 27.3% | 23.2% |
| Operating Margin | -2.3% | 4.1% | 5.3% | 6.1% |
| Forward P/E | — | 44.7x | 15.7x | 11.9x |
| Total Debt | $18M | $67.09B | $5.59B | $59M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $514K | $10.73B | $5.49B | $40M |
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Oilseeds… (COOT) | 100 | 39.2 | -60.8% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 216.4 | +116.4% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 71.1 | -28.9% |
| Flexsteel Industrie… (FLXS) | 100 | 147.9 | +47.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
COOT is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 16.3%, EPS growth -15.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.3%
- 16.3% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7%
WMT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- 499.5% 10Y total return vs TGT's 99.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.12, Low D/E 67.2%, current ratio 0.79x
- Beta 0.12 vs FLXS's 1.51
- 7.9% ROA vs COOT's -80.4%, ROIC 14.7% vs 10.0%
TGT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 0.95, yield 3.6%
- Beta 0.95, yield 3.6%, current ratio 0.94x
- 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
FLXS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Lower P/E (11.9x vs 15.7x)
- 4.8% margin vs COOT's -66.0%
- +80.1% vs COOT's -16.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.3% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.9x vs 15.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 4.8% margin vs COOT's -66.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs FLXS's 1.51 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +80.1% vs COOT's -16.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 7.9% ROA vs COOT's -80.4%, ROIC 14.7% vs 10.0% |
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FLXS leads in 3 of 6 categories
WMT leads 1 • COOT leads 0 • TGT leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FLXS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WMT is the larger business by revenue, generating $703.1B annually — 18548.2x COOT's $38M. FLXS is the more profitable business, keeping 4.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to COOT's -66.0%. On growth, FLXS holds the edge at +9.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $38M | $703.1B | $106.2B | $458M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$492,185 | $42.8B | $8.7B | $31M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$25M | $22.9B | $4.0B | $22M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$10M | $15.3B | $2.9B | $28M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +9.5% | +24.9% | +27.3% | +23.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.3% | +4.1% | +5.3% | +6.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -66.0% | +3.3% | +3.8% | +4.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -27.0% | +2.2% | +2.8% | +6.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +5.8% | +3.2% | +9.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +35.1% | +23.7% | -27.2% |
Valuation Metrics
FLXS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.5x trailing earnings, TGT trades at a 68% valuation discount to WMT's 47.7x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, TGT's 7.3x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than WMT's 24.8x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $18M | $1.04T | $57.4B | $295M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $31M | $1.09T | $57.5B | $314M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.23x | 47.69x | 15.49x | 15.54x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 44.71x | 15.74x | 11.90x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.33x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 18.83x | 24.85x | 7.26x | 10.38x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.11x | 1.46x | 0.55x | 0.67x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 19.66x | 10.45x | 3.55x | 1.87x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 24.97x | 20.23x | 8.74x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — COOT and TGT each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
TGT delivers a 26.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $26 in annual profit, vs $-5 for COOT. TGT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.35x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to COOT's 19.90x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FLXS scores 8/9 vs COOT's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -4.8% | +22.3% | +26.1% | +12.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -80.4% | +7.9% | +6.9% | +7.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +10.0% | +14.7% | +16.7% | +9.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +19.3% | +17.5% | +13.6% | +12.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 19.90x | 0.67x | 0.35x | 0.35x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $18M | $56.4B | $104M | $19M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $514,140 | $10.7B | $5.5B | $40M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $18M | $67.1B | $5.6B | $59M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -16.29x | 11.85x | 12.40x | 380.21x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
FLXS leads this category, winning 4 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 $839 for COOT. Over the past 12 months, FLXS leads with a +80.1% total return vs COOT's -16.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FLXS at 50.7% vs COOT's -56.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +21.0% | +15.7% | +26.4% | +38.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -16.6% | +32.7% | +36.6% | +80.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.6% | +160.5% | -11.0% | +242.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.6% | +186.9% | -31.6% | +19.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.6% | +499.5% | +99.5% | +51.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -56.2% | +37.6% | -3.8% | +50.7% |
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 FLXS's 1.51 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 COOT's 14.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.80x | 0.12x | 0.95x | 1.51x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.50 | $134.69 | $133.07 | $59.95 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.41 | $91.89 | $83.44 | $29.38 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +14.4% | +96.7% | +94.6% | +92.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.1 | 55.9 | 61.4 | 60.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 324K | 17.2M | 4.5M | 47K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — WMT and TGT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: WMT as "Buy", TGT as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 5.3% upside for WMT (target: $137) vs -8.4% for TGT (target: $115). For income investors, TGT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.58% vs WMT's 0.72%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $137.04 | $115.31 | $54.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 64 | 59 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.7% | +3.6% | +1.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 37 | 22 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.94 | $4.51 | $0.63 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.8% | +0.7% | +1.0% |
FLXS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). WMT leads in 1 (Risk & Volatility). 2 tied.
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Australian Oilseeds Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (COOT) is the stronger pick with 16.
3% 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 Walmart Inc. (WMT) a "Buy" — based on 64 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 — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS?
On trailing P/E, Target Corporation (TGT) is the cheapest at 15.
5x versus Walmart Inc. at 47. 7x. On forward P/E, Flexsteel Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 9x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS?
Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) delivered a total return of +186. 9%, compared to -91. 6% for Australian Oilseeds Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (COOT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WMT returned +499. 5% versus COOT's -91. 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 — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Walmart Inc.
(WMT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 12β versus Flexsteel Industries, Inc. 's 1. 51β — meaning FLXS is approximately 1195% more volatile than WMT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Target Corporation (TGT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 20% for Australian Oilseeds Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Australian Oilseeds Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (COOT) is pulling ahead at 16.
3% versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Flexsteel Industries, Inc. grew EPS 85. 9% year-over-year, compared to -1525. 8% for Australian Oilseeds Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares. Over a 3-year CAGR, COOT leads at 22. 3% 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 — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS?
Flexsteel Industries, Inc.
(FLXS) is the more profitable company, earning 4. 6% net margin versus -64. 2% for Australian Oilseeds Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares — meaning it keeps 4. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: COOT leads at 8. 9% versus 4. 2% for WMT. 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 COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Flexsteel Industries, Inc.
(FLXS) trades at 11. 9x forward P/E versus 44. 7x for Walmart Inc. — 32. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WMT: 5. 3% to $137. 04.
08Which pays a better dividend — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS?
In this comparison, TGT (3.
6% yield), FLXS (1. 1% yield), WMT (0. 7% yield) pay a dividend. COOT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS 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). Flexsteel Industries, Inc. (FLXS) carries a higher beta of 1. 51 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (WMT: +499. 5%, FLXS: +51. 4%), 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 COOT and WMT and TGT and FLXS?
These companies operate in different sectors (COOT (Consumer Defensive) and WMT (Consumer Defensive) and TGT (Consumer Defensive) and FLXS (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: COOT is a small-cap high-growth stock; WMT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; TGT is a mid-cap deep-value stock; FLXS is a small-cap deep-value stock. WMT, TGT, FLXS pay a dividend while COOT does 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.