Department Stores
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
KSS vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Specialty Retail
Specialty Retail
Discount Stores
Discount Stores
KSS vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Department Stores | Specialty Retail | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $1.61B | $2.92T | $1.04T | $57.36B | $448.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $15.53B | $742.78B | $703.06B | $106.25B | $286.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $271M | $90.80B | $22.91B | $4.04B | $8.55B |
| Gross Margin | 36.1% | 50.6% | 24.9% | 27.3% | 12.9% |
| Operating Margin | 3.3% | 11.5% | 4.1% | 5.3% | 3.8% |
| Forward P/E | 10.3x | 34.8x | 44.7x | 15.7x | 49.5x |
| Total Debt | $2.45B | $152.99B | $67.09B | $5.59B | $8.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $674M | $86.81B | $10.73B | $5.49B | $14.16B |
KSS vs AMZN 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kohl's Corporation (KSS) | 100 | 74.7 | -25.3% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 222.1 | +122.1% |
| 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: KSS vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
KSS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and momentum is your priority.
- Lower P/E (10.3x vs 49.5x)
- +127.8% vs COST's +1.0%
AMZN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 12.4%, EPS growth 29.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.7%
- 7.0% 10Y total return vs COST's 6.2%
- PEG 1.24 vs WMT's 4.06
- 12.4% revenue growth vs KSS's -4.3%
WMT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for stability.
- Beta 0.12 vs KSS's 2.32
TGT is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 0.95, yield 3.6%
- Beta 0.95, yield 3.6%, current ratio 0.94x
- 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
COST is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.13, Low D/E 28.0%, current ratio 1.03x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.4% revenue growth vs KSS's -4.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.3x vs 49.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 12.2% margin vs KSS's 1.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs KSS's 2.32 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +127.8% vs COST's +1.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.5% ROA vs KSS's 2.0%, ROIC 14.7% vs 4.6% |
KSS vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
KSS vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AMZN leads in 1 of 6 categories
KSS leads 1 • COST leads 1 • WMT leads 1 • TGT leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMZN is the larger business by revenue, generating $742.8B annually — 47.8x KSS's $15.5B. AMZN is the more profitable business, keeping 12.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to KSS's 1.7%. On growth, AMZN holds the edge at +16.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $15.5B | $742.8B | $703.1B | $106.2B | $286.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.2B | $155.9B | $42.8B | $8.7B | $13.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $271M | $90.8B | $22.9B | $4.0B | $8.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.2B | -$2.5B | $15.3B | $2.9B | $9.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +36.1% | +50.6% | +24.9% | +27.3% | +12.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.3% | +11.5% | +4.1% | +5.3% | +3.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +1.7% | +12.2% | +3.3% | +3.8% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +7.5% | -0.3% | +2.2% | +2.8% | +3.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.2% | +16.6% | +5.8% | +3.2% | +9.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +153.5% | +74.8% | +35.1% | +23.7% | -2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
KSS leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.1x trailing earnings, KSS trades at a 89% valuation discount to COST's 55.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMZN offers better value at 1.35x vs WMT's 4.33x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.6B | $2.92T | $1.04T | $57.4B | $448.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.4B | $2.98T | $1.09T | $57.5B | $442.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 6.06x | 37.82x | 47.69x | 15.49x | 55.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.26x | 34.77x | 44.71x | 15.74x | 49.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.35x | 4.33x | — | 3.68x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 2.80x | 20.47x | 24.85x | 7.26x | 34.55x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.10x | 4.07x | 1.46x | 0.55x | 1.63x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.41x | 7.14x | 10.45x | 3.55x | 15.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 1.46x | 378.98x | 24.97x | 20.23x | 57.24x |
Profitability & Efficiency
COST leads this category, winning 7 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 $7 for KSS. 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), KSS scores 7/9 vs TGT's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.9% | +23.3% | +22.3% | +26.1% | +28.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.0% | +11.5% | +7.9% | +6.9% | +10.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.6% | +14.7% | +14.7% | +16.7% | +34.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.8% | +15.3% | +17.5% | +13.6% | +27.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.61x | 0.37x | 0.67x | 0.35x | 0.28x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.8B | $66.2B | $56.4B | $104M | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $674M | $86.8B | $10.7B | $5.5B | $14.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.5B | $153.0B | $67.1B | $5.6B | $8.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.17x | 39.96x | 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 $3,516 for KSS. Over the past 12 months, KSS leads with a +127.8% total return vs COST's +1.0%. 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 | -32.1% | +19.7% | +15.7% | +26.4% | +18.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +127.8% | +43.7% | +32.7% | +36.6% | +1.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -9.7% | +156.2% | +160.5% | -11.0% | +108.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -64.8% | +64.8% | +186.9% | -31.6% | +172.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -25.3% | +697.8% | +499.5% | +99.5% | +625.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -3.3% | +36.8% | +37.6% | -3.8% | +27.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AMZN and WMT 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 KSS's 2.32 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AMZN currently trades 97.3% from its 52-week high vs KSS's 56.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.32x | 1.51x | 0.12x | 0.95x | 0.13x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.22 | $278.56 | $134.69 | $133.07 | $1067.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.47 | $185.01 | $91.89 | $83.44 | $846.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +56.9% | +97.3% | +96.7% | +94.6% | +94.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.7 | 81.1 | 55.9 | 61.4 | 47.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 4.6M | 45.5M | 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: KSS as "Hold", AMZN as "Buy", WMT as "Buy", TGT as "Hold", COST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 25.4% upside for KSS (target: $18) 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 | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $18.00 | $306.77 | $137.04 | $115.31 | $1070.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 39 | 94 | 64 | 59 | 58 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.4% | — | +0.7% | +3.6% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | 37 | 22 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.49 | — | $0.94 | $4.51 | $4.91 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.8% | +0.7% | +0.2% |
AMZN leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). KSS leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
KSS vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is the stronger pick with 12. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 3% for Kohl's Corporation (KSS). Kohl's Corporation (KSS) offers the better valuation at 6. 1x trailing P/E (10. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) a "Buy" — based on 94 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 — KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
On trailing P/E, Kohl's Corporation (KSS) is the cheapest at 6.
1x versus Costco Wholesale Corporation at 55. 6x. On forward P/E, Kohl's Corporation is actually cheaper at 10. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Amazon. com, Inc. wins at 1. 24x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
Over the past 5 years, Walmart Inc.
(WMT) delivered a total return of +186. 9%, compared to -64. 8% for Kohl's Corporation (KSS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +697. 8% versus KSS's -25. 3%. 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 — KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Walmart Inc.
(WMT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 12β versus Kohl's Corporation's 2. 32β — meaning KSS is approximately 1883% 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 — KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is pulling ahead at 12. 4% versus -4. 3% for Kohl's Corporation (KSS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Kohl's Corporation grew EPS 144. 3% year-over-year, compared to -8. 2% for Target Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMZN leads at 11. 7% 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 — KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
Amazon.
com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus 1. 8% for Kohl's Corporation — meaning it keeps 10. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMZN leads at 11. 2% versus 3. 3% for KSS. 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 KSS or AMZN 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, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 24x versus Walmart Inc. 's 4. 06x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Kohl's Corporation (KSS) trades at 10. 3x forward P/E versus 49. 5x for Costco Wholesale Corporation — 39. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KSS: 25. 4% to $18. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
In this comparison, TGT (3.
6% yield), KSS (3. 4% yield), WMT (0. 7% yield), COST (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. AMZN does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is KSS or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST 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, +499. 5% 10Y return). Kohl's Corporation (KSS) carries a higher beta of 2. 32 — 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%, KSS: -25. 3%), 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 KSS and AMZN and WMT and TGT and COST?
These companies operate in different sectors (KSS (Consumer Cyclical) and AMZN (Consumer Cyclical) and WMT (Consumer Defensive) and TGT (Consumer Defensive) 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: KSS is a small-cap deep-value stock; AMZN is a mega-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. KSS, WMT, TGT pay a dividend while AMZN, 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.
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.