FRT vs COST

For growth investors, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the stronger pick with 8.

2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 3% for Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT). Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT) offers the better valuation at 24. 1x trailing P/E (39. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT) a "Buy" — based on 33 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, Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT) is the cheapest at 24.

1x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 55. 8x. On forward P/E, Federal Realty Investment Trust is actually cheaper at 39. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Federal Realty Investment Trust wins at 1. 65x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation's 3. 30x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) delivered a total return of +182.

6%, compared to +24. 7% for Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: COST returned +631. 6% versus FRT's +0. 2%. 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), Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

13β versus Federal Realty Investment Trust's 0. 55β — meaning FRT is approximately 334% 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 144% for Federal Realty Investment Trust — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is pulling ahead at 8.

2% versus 6. 3% for Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Federal Realty Investment Trust grew EPS 40. 1% year-over-year, compared to 10. 0% for Costco Wholesale 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.

Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT) is the more profitable company, earning 32.

1% net margin versus 2. 9% for Costco Wholesale Corporation — meaning it keeps 32. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FRT leads at 35. 9% versus 3. 8% for COST. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — COST leads at 12. 8%, 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, Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 65x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation's 3. 30x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT) trades at 39. 9x forward P/E versus 49. 7x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 9. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for COST: 5. 3% to $1070. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRT) offers the highest yield at 3. 9%, versus 0. 5% for Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

13), +631. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (COST: +631. 6%, FRT: +0. 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (FRT (Real Estate) 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: FRT is a small-cap income-oriented stock; COST is a large-cap quality compounder stock. FRT pays 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.