Discount Stores
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
COST vs WMT vs TGT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
COST vs WMT vs TGT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Discount Stores | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $441.35B | $1.04T | $59.32B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $286.26B | $703.06B | $106.25B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $8.55B | $22.91B | $4.04B |
| Gross Margin | 12.9% | 24.9% | 27.3% |
| Operating Margin | 3.8% | 4.1% | 5.3% |
| Forward P/E | 48.7x | 44.7x | 16.3x |
| Total Debt | $8.17B | $67.09B | $5.59B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $14.16B | $10.73B | $5.49B |
COST vs WMT vs TGT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Costco Wholesale Co… (COST) | 100 | 322.8 | +222.8% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 314.6 | +214.6% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 106.4 | +6.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: COST vs WMT vs TGT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
COST is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 8.2%, EPS growth 10.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.6%
- 6.2% 10Y total return vs WMT's 5.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.13, Low D/E 28.0%, current ratio 1.03x
WMT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 0.12, yield 0.7%
- Beta 0.12, yield 0.7%, current ratio 0.79x
- Beta 0.12 vs TGT's 0.95
TGT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Lower P/E (16.3x vs 44.7x)
- 3.8% margin vs COST's 3.0%
- 3.5% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.2% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (16.3x vs 44.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.8% margin vs COST's 3.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs TGT's 0.95 | |
| Dividends | 3.5% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +43.9% vs COST's -0.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.7% ROA vs TGT's 6.9%, ROIC 34.5% vs 16.7% |
COST vs WMT vs TGT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
COST vs WMT vs TGT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
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 — 6.6x TGT's $106.2B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 3.8% (TGT) to 3.0% (COST). On growth, COST holds the edge at +9.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $286.3B | $703.1B | $106.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $13.5B | $42.8B | $8.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $8.5B | $22.9B | $4.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $9.1B | $15.3B | $2.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +12.9% | +24.9% | +27.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.8% | +4.1% | +5.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +3.0% | +3.3% | +3.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +3.2% | +2.2% | +2.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.2% | +5.8% | +3.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.1% | +35.1% | +23.7% |
Valuation Metrics
TGT leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.0x trailing earnings, TGT trades at a 71% valuation discount to COST's 54.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), COST offers better value at 3.62x vs WMT's 4.33x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $441.4B | $1.04T | $59.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $435.4B | $1.09T | $59.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 54.68x | 47.65x | 16.02x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 48.71x | 44.67x | 16.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.62x | 4.33x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 33.99x | 24.83x | 7.51x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.60x | 1.45x | 0.57x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 15.19x | 10.44x | 3.67x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 56.32x | 24.94x | 20.93x |
Profitability & Efficiency
COST leads this category, winning 8 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 $22 for WMT. COST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.28x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WMT's 0.67x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), COST scores 7/9 vs TGT's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +28.8% | +22.3% | +26.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +10.7% | +7.9% | +6.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +34.5% | +14.7% | +16.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +27.9% | +17.5% | +13.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.28x | 0.67x | 0.35x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$6.0B | $56.4B | $104M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $14.2B | $10.7B | $5.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $8.2B | $67.1B | $5.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 77.52x | 11.85x | 12.40x |
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 $28,531 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7,095 for TGT. Over the past 12 months, TGT leads with a +43.9% total return vs COST's -0.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WMT at 37.5% vs TGT's -2.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +16.9% | +15.6% | +30.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -0.9% | +33.0% | +43.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +105.4% | +160.2% | -8.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +169.6% | +185.3% | -29.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +624.5% | +505.0% | +108.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +27.1% | +37.5% | -2.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — WMT and TGT each lead in 1 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. TGT currently trades 97.9% from its 52-week high vs COST's 93.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.13x | 0.12x | 0.95x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $1067.08 | $134.69 | $133.07 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $846.80 | $91.89 | $83.44 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.3% | +96.6% | +97.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.5 | 58.1 | 58.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.6M | 17.2M | 4.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — WMT and TGT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: COST as "Buy", WMT as "Buy", TGT as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 7.5% upside for COST (target: $1070) vs -11.4% for TGT (target: $115). For income investors, TGT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.46% vs COST's 0.49%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $1070.00 | $137.04 | $115.31 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 58 | 64 | 59 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.5% | +0.7% | +3.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 37 | 22 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $4.91 | $0.94 | $4.51 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.2% | +0.8% | +0.7% |
TGT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). COST leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
COST vs WMT vs TGT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is COST or WMT or TGT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the stronger pick with 8.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). Target Corporation (TGT) offers the better valuation at 16. 0x trailing P/E (16. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) a "Buy" — based on 58 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 — COST or WMT or TGT?
On trailing P/E, Target Corporation (TGT) is the cheapest at 16.
0x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 54. 7x. On forward P/E, Target Corporation is actually cheaper at 16. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Costco Wholesale Corporation wins at 3. 23x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — COST or WMT or TGT?
Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) delivered a total return of +185. 3%, compared to -29. 1% for Target Corporation (TGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: COST returned +624. 5% versus TGT's +108. 0%. 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 — COST or WMT or TGT?
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 67% for Walmart Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — COST or WMT or TGT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is pulling ahead at 8.
2% 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, COST leads at 6. 6% 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 — COST or WMT or TGT?
Target Corporation (TGT) is the more profitable company, earning 3.
5% net margin versus 2. 9% for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 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 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 COST or WMT or TGT 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. 23x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Target Corporation (TGT) trades at 16. 3x forward P/E versus 48. 7x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 32. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for COST: 7. 5% to $1070. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — COST or WMT or TGT?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Target Corporation (TGT) offers the highest yield at 3. 5%, versus 0. 5% for Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST).
09Is COST or WMT or TGT 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, +505. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WMT: +505. 0%, 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.
10What are the main differences between COST and WMT and TGT?
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: COST is a large-cap quality compounder stock; WMT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; TGT is a mid-cap deep-value stock. WMT, TGT pay a dividend while COST 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.