Packaged Foods
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FTLF vs WMT vs COST vs AMZN vs TGT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
FTLF vs WMT vs COST vs AMZN vs TGT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Packaged Foods | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $90M | $1.04T | $447.13B | $2.93T | $57.06B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $71M | $703.06B | $286.26B | $742.78B | $106.25B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $7M | $22.91B | $8.55B | $90.80B | $4.04B |
| Gross Margin | 40.7% | 24.9% | 12.9% | 50.6% | 27.3% |
| Operating Margin | 15.1% | 4.1% | 3.8% | 11.5% | 5.3% |
| Forward P/E | 7.0x | 44.8x | 49.4x | 31.4x | 15.7x |
| Total Debt | $13M | $67.09B | $8.17B | $152.99B | $5.59B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4M | $10.73B | $14.16B | $86.81B | $5.49B |
FTLF vs WMT vs COST vs AMZN vs TGT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| FitLife Brands, Inc. (FTLF) | 100 | 692.0 | +592.0% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 315.3 | +215.3% |
| Costco Wholesale Co… (COST) | 100 | 327.0 | +227.0% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 223.3 | +123.3% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 102.4 | +2.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FTLF vs WMT vs COST vs AMZN vs TGT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FTLF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Rev growth 22.3%, EPS growth 68.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 32.2%
- PEG 0.27 vs WMT's 4.07
- 22.3% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7%
- Lower P/E (7.0x vs 15.7x)
WMT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 0.11, yield 0.7%
COST ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 6.2% 10Y total return vs WMT's 5.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.10, Low D/E 28.0%, current ratio 1.03x
- Beta 0.10, yield 0.5%, current ratio 1.03x
- Beta 0.10 vs AMZN's 1.50, lower leverage
AMZN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and momentum.
- 12.2% margin vs COST's 3.0%
- +42.0% vs FTLF's -39.8%
- 11.5% ROA vs FTLF's 6.1%, ROIC 14.7% vs 21.6%
TGT is the clearest fit if your priority is dividends.
- 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 22.3% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.0x vs 15.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 12.2% margin vs COST's 3.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.10 vs AMZN's 1.50, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +42.0% vs FTLF's -39.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.5% ROA vs FTLF's 6.1%, ROIC 14.7% vs 21.6% |
FTLF vs WMT vs COST vs AMZN vs TGT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FTLF vs WMT vs COST vs AMZN vs TGT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FTLF leads in 1 of 6 categories
COST leads 1 • WMT leads 1 • AMZN leads 0 • TGT leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — FTLF and AMZN each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 10526.7x FTLF's $71M. AMZN is the more profitable business, keeping 12.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to COST's 3.0%. On growth, FTLF holds the edge at +47.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $71M | $703.1B | $286.3B | $742.8B | $106.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $11M | $42.8B | $13.5B | $155.9B | $8.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $7M | $22.9B | $8.5B | $90.8B | $4.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $8M | $15.3B | $9.1B | -$2.5B | $2.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +40.7% | +24.9% | +12.9% | +50.6% | +27.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +15.1% | +4.1% | +3.8% | +11.5% | +5.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +9.6% | +3.3% | +3.0% | +12.2% | +3.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +11.5% | +2.2% | +3.2% | -0.3% | +2.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +47.0% | +5.8% | +9.2% | +16.6% | +3.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -57.1% | +35.1% | -2.1% | +74.8% | +23.7% |
Valuation Metrics
FTLF leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.5x trailing earnings, FTLF trades at a 81% valuation discount to COST's 55.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FTLF offers better value at 0.41x vs WMT's 4.34x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $90M | $1.04T | $447.1B | $2.93T | $57.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $99M | $1.10T | $441.1B | $3.00T | $57.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.52x | 47.76x | 55.40x | 38.03x | 15.41x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 7.00x | 44.77x | 49.35x | 31.41x | 15.66x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.41x | 4.34x | 3.67x | 1.36x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.46x | 24.88x | 34.44x | 20.58x | 7.22x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.39x | 1.46x | 1.62x | 4.09x | 0.54x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.62x | 10.47x | 15.39x | 7.18x | 3.53x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9.34x | 25.00x | 57.05x | 381.09x | 20.13x |
Profitability & Efficiency
COST leads this category, winning 5 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 $16 for FTLF. 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), FTLF scores 8/9 vs TGT's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +16.1% | +22.3% | +28.8% | +23.3% | +26.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.1% | +7.9% | +10.7% | +11.5% | +6.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +21.6% | +14.7% | +34.5% | +14.7% | +16.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +28.4% | +17.5% | +27.9% | +15.3% | +13.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.37x | 0.67x | 0.28x | 0.37x | 0.35x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $9M | $56.4B | -$6.0B | $66.2B | $104M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4M | $10.7B | $14.2B | $86.8B | $5.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $13M | $67.1B | $8.2B | $153.0B | $5.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 8.14x | 11.85x | 77.52x | 39.96x | 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 $28,660 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,828 for TGT. Over the past 12 months, AMZN leads with a +42.0% total return vs FTLF's -39.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WMT at 37.7% vs TGT's -4.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -39.4% | +16.1% | +18.4% | +20.4% | +25.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -39.8% | +35.1% | +0.6% | +42.0% | +33.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +10.7% | +161.3% | +108.0% | +157.7% | -11.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +100.6% | +186.6% | +174.0% | +70.9% | -31.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +175.2% | +501.4% | +622.8% | +702.2% | +98.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +3.4% | +37.7% | +27.7% | +37.1% | -4.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — COST and AMZN 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 AMZN's 1.50 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AMZN currently trades 97.9% from its 52-week high vs FTLF's 45.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.27x | 0.11x | 0.10x | 1.50x | 0.94x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $20.98 | $134.69 | $1067.08 | $278.56 | $133.07 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $8.67 | $91.89 | $846.80 | $188.82 | $83.44 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +45.5% | +96.8% | +94.5% | +97.9% | +94.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.9 | 56.2 | 54.2 | 74.2 | 50.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 28K | 17.1M | 1.6M | 45.2M | 4.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — WMT and TGT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FTLF as "Buy", WMT as "Buy", COST as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy", TGT as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 219.4% upside for FTLF (target: $31) 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 | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $30.50 | $137.22 | $1070.13 | $306.77 | $115.44 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 1 | 64 | 58 | 94 | 59 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.7% | +0.5% | — | +3.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 37 | 0 | — | 22 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.94 | $4.91 | — | $4.51 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.8% | +0.2% | 0.0% | +0.7% |
FTLF leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). COST leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
FTLF vs WMT vs COST vs AMZN vs TGT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN or TGT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, FitLife Brands, Inc.
(FTLF) is the stronger pick with 22. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). FitLife Brands, Inc. (FTLF) offers the better valuation at 10. 5x trailing P/E (7. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate FitLife Brands, Inc. (FTLF) a "Buy" — based on 1 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 — FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN or TGT?
On trailing P/E, FitLife Brands, Inc.
(FTLF) is the cheapest at 10. 5x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 55. 4x. On forward P/E, FitLife Brands, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: FitLife Brands, Inc. wins at 0. 27x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 07x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN or TGT?
Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) delivered a total return of +186. 6%, compared to -31. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +702. 2% versus TGT's +98. 7%. 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 — FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN or TGT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
10β versus Amazon. com, Inc. 's 1. 50β — meaning AMZN is approximately 1416% 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 67% for Walmart Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN or TGT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), FitLife Brands, Inc.
(FTLF) is pulling ahead at 22. 3% versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: FitLife Brands, Inc. grew EPS 68. 1% year-over-year, compared to -8. 2% for Target Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, FTLF leads at 32. 2% 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 — FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN or TGT?
FitLife Brands, Inc.
(FTLF) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 9% net margin versus 2. 9% for Costco Wholesale Corporation — meaning it keeps 13. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FTLF leads at 20. 3% versus 3. 8% for COST. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AMZN leads at 50. 3%, 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 FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN 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, FitLife Brands, Inc. (FTLF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 27x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 07x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, FitLife Brands, Inc. (FTLF) trades at 7. 0x forward P/E versus 49. 4x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 42. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FTLF: 219. 4% to $30. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN or TGT?
In this comparison, TGT (3.
6% yield), WMT (0. 7% yield), COST (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. FTLF, AMZN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FTLF or WMT or COST or AMZN 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. 11), 0. 7% yield, +501. 4% 10Y return). Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) carries a higher beta of 1. 50 — 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: +501. 4%, AMZN: +702. 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.
10What are the main differences between FTLF and WMT and COST and AMZN and TGT?
These companies operate in different sectors (FTLF (Consumer Defensive) and WMT (Consumer Defensive) and COST (Consumer Defensive) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and TGT (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: FTLF is a small-cap high-growth stock; WMT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; COST is a large-cap quality compounder stock; AMZN is a mega-cap quality compounder stock; TGT is a mid-cap deep-value stock. WMT, TGT pay a dividend while FTLF, COST, AMZN 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.