ELF vs WMT vs TGT vs COST

For growth investors, e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the stronger pick with 28. 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 e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) a "Buy" — based on 27 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.

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: e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. wins at 0. 49x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.

(WMT) delivered a total return of +186. 9%, compared to -31. 6% for Target Corporation (TGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: COST returned +625. 0% versus TGT's +99. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Walmart Inc.

(WMT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 12β versus e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. 's 2. 36β — meaning ELF is approximately 1920% 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.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is pulling ahead at 28. 3% 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 -13. 1% for e. l. f. Beauty, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ELF leads at 49. 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.

e.

l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 5% net margin versus 2. 9% for Costco Wholesale Corporation — meaning it keeps 8. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ELF leads at 12. 0% versus 3. 8% for COST. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ELF leads at 71. 2%, 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.

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, e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 49x 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 ELF: 54. 0% to $95. 17.

In this comparison, TGT (3.

6% yield), WMT (0. 7% yield), COST (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. ELF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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). e. l. f. Beauty, Inc. (ELF) carries a higher beta of 2. 36 — 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%, ELF: +133. 1%), 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.

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: ELF is a small-cap high-growth stock; WMT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; TGT is a mid-cap deep-value stock; COST is a large-cap quality compounder stock. WMT, TGT pay a dividend while ELF, 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.