Grocery Stores
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
KR vs WMT vs TGT vs COST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
Discount Stores
KR vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Grocery Stores | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $42.03B | $1.04T | $57.36B | $448.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $147.64B | $703.06B | $106.25B | $286.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.02B | $22.91B | $4.04B | $8.55B |
| Gross Margin | 22.3% | 24.9% | 27.3% | 12.9% |
| Operating Margin | 1.3% | 4.1% | 5.3% | 3.8% |
| Forward P/E | 12.7x | 44.7x | 15.7x | 49.5x |
| Total Debt | $24.68B | $67.09B | $5.59B | $8.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $3.33B | $10.73B | $5.49B | $14.16B |
KR vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Kroger Co. (KR) | 100 | 203.6 | +103.6% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 314.9 | +214.9% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 102.9 | +2.9% |
| Costco Wholesale Co… (COST) | 100 | 328.1 | +228.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: KR vs WMT vs TGT vs COST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
KR is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (12.7x vs 15.7x)
WMT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 0.12, yield 0.7%
- Beta 0.12 vs TGT's 0.95
TGT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for defensive.
- Beta 0.95, yield 3.6%, current ratio 0.94x
- 3.8% margin vs KR's 0.7%
- 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%
- +36.6% vs KR's -6.4%
COST is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 8.2%, EPS growth 10.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.6%
- 6.2% 10Y total return vs WMT's 499.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.13, Low D/E 28.0%, current ratio 1.03x
- PEG 3.28 vs WMT's 4.06
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.2% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.7x vs 15.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.8% margin vs KR's 0.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs TGT's 0.95 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +36.6% vs KR's -6.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.7% ROA vs KR's 2.0%, ROIC 34.5% vs 5.0% |
KR vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
KR vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
TGT leads in 1 of 6 categories
COST leads 1 • WMT leads 1 • KR leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓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 0.7% (KR). On growth, COST holds the edge at +9.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $147.6B | $703.1B | $106.2B | $286.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5.5B | $42.8B | $8.7B | $13.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.0B | $22.9B | $4.0B | $8.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3.5B | $15.3B | $2.9B | $9.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +22.3% | +24.9% | +27.3% | +12.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +1.3% | +4.1% | +5.3% | +3.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +0.7% | +3.3% | +3.8% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.4% | +2.2% | +2.8% | +3.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +1.2% | +5.8% | +3.2% | +9.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +50.0% | +35.1% | +23.7% | -2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — KR and TGT each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.5x trailing earnings, TGT trades at a 72% valuation discount to COST's 55.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), COST offers better value at 3.68x vs WMT's 4.33x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $42.0B | $1.04T | $57.4B | $448.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $63.4B | $1.09T | $57.5B | $442.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 43.12x | 47.69x | 15.49x | 55.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 12.68x | 44.71x | 15.74x | 49.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.33x | — | 3.68x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.91x | 24.85x | 7.26x | 34.55x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.28x | 1.46x | 0.55x | 1.63x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.33x | 10.45x | 3.55x | 15.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.55x | 24.97x | 20.23x | 57.24x |
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 $13 for KR. COST carries lower financial leverage with a 0.28x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KR's 4.16x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), COST scores 7/9 vs KR's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.0% | +22.3% | +26.1% | +28.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.0% | +7.9% | +6.9% | +10.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.0% | +14.7% | +16.7% | +34.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.5% | +17.5% | +13.6% | +27.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 4.16x | 0.67x | 0.35x | 0.28x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $21.3B | $56.4B | $104M | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $3.3B | $10.7B | $5.5B | $14.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $24.7B | $67.1B | $5.6B | $8.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.59x | 11.85x | 12.40x | 77.52x |
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 $28,695 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,838 for TGT. Over the past 12 months, TGT leads with a +36.6% total return vs KR's -6.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WMT at 37.6% vs TGT's -3.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +6.0% | +15.7% | +26.4% | +18.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -6.4% | +32.7% | +36.6% | +1.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.7% | +160.5% | -11.0% | +108.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +90.7% | +186.9% | -31.6% | +172.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +108.7% | +499.5% | +99.5% | +625.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +12.6% | +37.6% | -3.8% | +27.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — KR and WMT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KR is the less volatile stock with a -0.64 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. WMT currently trades 96.7% from its 52-week high vs KR's 86.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.64x | 0.12x | 0.95x | 0.13x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $76.58 | $134.69 | $133.07 | $1067.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $58.60 | $91.89 | $83.44 | $846.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +86.7% | +96.7% | +94.6% | +94.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.2 | 55.9 | 61.4 | 47.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 5.6M | 17.2M | 4.5M | 1.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — WMT and TGT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: KR as "Buy", WMT as "Buy", TGT as "Hold", COST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 12.6% upside for KR (target: $75) vs -8.4% for TGT (target: $115). For income investors, TGT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.58% vs COST's 0.48%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $74.75 | $137.04 | $115.31 | $1070.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 44 | 64 | 59 | 58 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.0% | +0.7% | +3.6% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 21 | 37 | 22 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.35 | $0.94 | $4.51 | $4.91 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +6.4% | +0.8% | +0.7% | +0.2% |
TGT leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). COST leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
KR vs WMT vs TGT vs COST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is KR or WMT or TGT or COST 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 15. 5x trailing P/E (15. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Kroger Co. (KR) a "Buy" — based on 44 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 — KR or WMT or TGT or COST?
On trailing P/E, Target Corporation (TGT) is the cheapest at 15.
5x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 55. 6x. On forward P/E, The Kroger Co. is actually cheaper at 12. 7x — 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. 28x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — KR or WMT or TGT or COST?
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.
04Which is safer — KR or WMT or TGT or COST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Kroger Co.
(KR) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 64β versus Target Corporation's 0. 95β — meaning TGT is approximately -249% more volatile than KR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 28% versus 4% for The Kroger Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — KR or WMT or TGT or COST?
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 -58. 0% for The Kroger Co.. 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 — KR or WMT or TGT or COST?
Target Corporation (TGT) is the more profitable company, earning 3.
5% net margin versus 0. 7% for The Kroger Co. — 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 1. 3% for KR. 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 KR or WMT or TGT 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. 28x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, The Kroger Co. (KR) trades at 12. 7x forward P/E versus 49. 5x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 36. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KR: 12. 6% to $74. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — KR or WMT or TGT or COST?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Target Corporation (TGT) offers the highest yield at 3. 6%, versus 0. 5% for Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST).
09Is KR or WMT or TGT or COST better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Kroger Co.
(KR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 64), 2. 0% yield, +108. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (KR: +108. 7%, TGT: +99. 5%), 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 KR and WMT and TGT and COST?
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: KR is a mid-cap quality compounder 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. KR, 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.