Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS vs COST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
Discount Stores
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS vs COST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $18M | $1.04T | $57.06B | $299M | $447.13B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $38M | $703.06B | $106.25B | $458M | $286.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-25M | $22.91B | $4.04B | $22M | $8.55B |
| Gross Margin | 9.5% | 24.9% | 27.3% | 23.2% | 12.9% |
| Operating Margin | -2.3% | 4.1% | 5.3% | 6.1% | 3.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | 44.8x | 15.7x | 11.8x | 49.4x |
| Total Debt | $18M | $67.09B | $5.59B | $59M | $8.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $514K | $10.73B | $5.49B | $40M | $14.16B |
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS vs COST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Oilseeds… (COOT) | 100 | 38.2 | -61.8% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 216.7 | +116.7% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 70.7 | -29.3% |
| Flexsteel Industrie… (FLXS) | 100 | 149.7 | +49.7% |
| Costco Wholesale Co… (COST) | 100 | 137.7 | +37.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS vs COST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
COOT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 16.3%, EPS growth -15.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.3%
- 16.3% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7%
Among these 5 stocks, WMT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
TGT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 0.94, yield 3.6%
- 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 (11.8x vs 15.7x)
- 4.8% margin vs COOT's -66.0%
- +77.1% vs COOT's -16.5%
COST is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- 6.2% 10Y total return vs WMT's 5.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.10, Low D/E 28.0%, current ratio 1.03x
- PEG 3.27 vs WMT's 4.07
- Beta 0.10, yield 0.5%, current ratio 1.03x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.3% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.8x vs 15.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 4.8% margin vs COOT's -66.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.10 vs FLXS's 1.45, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +77.1% vs COOT's -16.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.7% ROA vs COOT's -80.4%, ROIC 34.5% vs 10.0% |
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS vs COST — 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 vs COST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FLXS leads in 3 of 6 categories
COST leads 1 • COOT leads 0 • WMT 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 | $286.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$492,185 | $42.8B | $8.7B | $31M | $13.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$25M | $22.9B | $4.0B | $22M | $8.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$10M | $15.3B | $2.9B | $28M | $9.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +9.5% | +24.9% | +27.3% | +23.2% | +12.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.3% | +4.1% | +5.3% | +6.1% | +3.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -66.0% | +3.3% | +3.8% | +4.8% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -27.0% | +2.2% | +2.8% | +6.1% | +3.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +5.8% | +3.2% | +9.8% | +9.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +35.1% | +23.7% | -27.2% | -2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
FLXS leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.4x trailing earnings, TGT trades at a 72% valuation discount to COST's 55.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), COST offers better value at 3.67x vs WMT's 4.34x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $18M | $1.04T | $57.1B | $299M | $447.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $30M | $1.10T | $57.2B | $318M | $441.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.20x | 47.76x | 15.41x | 15.73x | 55.40x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 44.77x | 15.66x | 11.79x | 49.35x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.34x | — | — | 3.67x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 18.61x | 24.88x | 7.22x | 10.50x | 34.44x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.09x | 1.46x | 0.54x | 0.68x | 1.62x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 19.28x | 10.47x | 3.53x | 1.89x | 15.39x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 25.00x | 20.13x | 8.85x | 57.05x |
Profitability & Efficiency
COST leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
COST delivers a 28.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $29 in annual profit, vs $-5 for COOT. COST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.28x 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% | +28.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -80.4% | +7.9% | +6.9% | +7.5% | +10.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +10.0% | +14.7% | +16.7% | +9.9% | +34.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +19.3% | +17.5% | +13.6% | +12.3% | +27.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 19.90x | 0.67x | 0.35x | 0.35x | 0.28x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $18M | $56.4B | $104M | $19M | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $514,140 | $10.7B | $5.5B | $40M | $14.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $18M | $67.1B | $5.6B | $59M | $8.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -16.29x | 11.85x | 12.40x | 380.21x | 77.52x |
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 $28,660 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $819 for COOT. Over the past 12 months, FLXS leads with a +77.1% total return vs COOT's -16.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors FLXS at 51.3% vs COOT's -56.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +18.2% | +16.1% | +25.7% | +40.4% | +18.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -16.5% | +35.1% | +33.9% | +77.1% | +0.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.8% | +161.3% | -11.4% | +246.5% | +108.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.8% | +186.6% | -31.7% | +29.5% | +174.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -91.8% | +501.4% | +98.7% | +53.0% | +622.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -56.6% | +37.7% | -4.0% | +51.3% | +27.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — WMT and COST each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
COST is the less volatile stock with a 0.10 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FLXS's 1.45 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WMT currently trades 96.8% from its 52-week high vs COOT's 14.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.79x | 0.11x | 0.94x | 1.45x | 0.10x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.50 | $134.69 | $133.07 | $59.95 | $1067.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.41 | $91.89 | $83.44 | $29.38 | $846.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +14.1% | +96.8% | +94.1% | +93.1% | +94.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.4 | 56.2 | 50.5 | 60.7 | 54.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 324K | 17.1M | 4.5M | 47K | 1.6M |
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", COST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 6.1% upside for COST (target: $1070) vs -7.8% for TGT (target: $115). For income investors, TGT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.60% vs COST's 0.49%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $137.22 | $115.44 | $54.00 | $1070.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 64 | 59 | — | 58 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.7% | +3.6% | +1.1% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 37 | 22 | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.94 | $4.51 | $0.63 | $4.91 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.8% | +0.7% | +0.9% | +0.2% |
FLXS leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). COST leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
COOT vs WMT vs TGT vs FLXS vs COST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS or COST 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. 4x 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 or COST?
On trailing P/E, Target Corporation (TGT) is the cheapest at 15.
4x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 55. 4x. On forward P/E, Flexsteel Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 8x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Costco Wholesale Corporation wins at 3. 27x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 07x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS or COST?
Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) delivered a total return of +186. 6%, compared to -91. 8% for Australian Oilseeds Holdings Limited Ordinary Shares (COOT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: COST returned +622. 8% versus COOT's -91. 8%. 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 or COST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
10β versus Flexsteel Industries, Inc. 's 1. 45β — meaning FLXS is approximately 1362% more volatile than COST relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 28% 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 or COST?
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 or COST?
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 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 COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS 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, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 3. 27x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 07x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Flexsteel Industries, Inc. (FLXS) trades at 11. 8x forward P/E versus 49. 4x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 37. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for COST: 6. 1% to $1070. 13.
08Which pays a better dividend — COOT or WMT or TGT or FLXS or COST?
In this comparison, TGT (3.
6% yield), FLXS (1. 1% yield), WMT (0. 7% yield), COST (0. 5% 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 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. 11), 0. 7% yield, +501. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WMT: +501. 4%, COOT: -91. 8%), 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 and COST?
These companies operate in different sectors (COOT (Consumer Defensive) and WMT (Consumer Defensive) and TGT (Consumer Defensive) and FLXS (Consumer Cyclical) and COST (Consumer Defensive)), 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; COST is a large-cap quality compounder stock. WMT, TGT, FLXS pay a dividend while COOT, 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.