Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
SN 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
SN vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances | Specialty Retail | Specialty Retail | Discount Stores | Discount Stores |
| Market Cap | $16.01B | $2.92T | $1.04T | $57.36B | $448.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $5.18B | $742.78B | $703.06B | $106.25B | $286.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $705M | $90.80B | $22.91B | $4.04B | $8.55B |
| Gross Margin | 62.1% | 50.6% | 24.9% | 27.3% | 12.9% |
| Operating Margin | 18.3% | 11.5% | 4.1% | 5.3% | 3.8% |
| Forward P/E | 18.7x | 34.8x | 44.7x | 15.7x | 49.5x |
| Total Debt | $902M | $152.99B | $67.09B | $5.59B | $8.17B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $777M | $86.81B | $10.73B | $5.49B | $14.16B |
SN vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| SharkNinja, Inc. (SN) | 100 | 267.4 | +167.4% |
| Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) | 100 | 202.9 | +102.9% |
| Walmart Inc. (WMT) | 100 | 244.3 | +144.3% |
| Target Corporation (TGT) | 100 | 92.3 | -7.7% |
| Costco Wholesale Co… (COST) | 100 | 180.5 | +80.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SN vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 15.7%, EPS growth 58.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 19.8%
- 15.7% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7%
- 13.6% margin vs COST's 3.0%
- 14.2% ROA vs TGT's 6.9%, ROIC 26.0% vs 16.7%
AMZN ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 1.24 vs WMT's 4.06
- +43.7% vs COST's +1.0%
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 SN's 1.88
TGT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if defensive is your priority.
- Beta 0.95, yield 3.6%, current ratio 0.94x
- Lower P/E (15.7x vs 49.5x)
- 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
COST is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 6.2% 10Y total return vs AMZN's 7.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.13, Low D/E 28.0%, current ratio 1.03x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 15.7% revenue growth vs TGT's -1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.7x vs 49.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.6% margin vs COST's 3.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs SN's 1.88 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs WMT's 0.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +43.7% vs COST's +1.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 14.2% ROA vs TGT's 6.9%, ROIC 26.0% vs 16.7% |
SN vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
SN 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
SN leads in 1 of 6 categories
TGT leads 1 • COST leads 1 • AMZN leads 0 • WMT leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SN 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 — 143.5x SN's $5.2B. SN is the more profitable business, keeping 13.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to COST's 3.0%. On growth, AMZN holds the edge at +16.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $5.2B | $742.8B | $703.1B | $106.2B | $286.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.1B | $155.9B | $42.8B | $8.7B | $13.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $705M | $90.8B | $22.9B | $4.0B | $8.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $383M | -$2.5B | $15.3B | $2.9B | $9.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +62.1% | +50.6% | +24.9% | +27.3% | +12.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +18.3% | +11.5% | +4.1% | +5.3% | +3.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +13.6% | +12.2% | +3.3% | +3.8% | +3.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +7.4% | -0.3% | +2.2% | +2.8% | +3.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -100.0% | +16.6% | +5.8% | +3.2% | +9.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.4% | +74.8% | +35.1% | +23.7% | -2.1% |
Valuation Metrics
TGT leads this category, winning 6 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), 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 | $16.0B | $2.92T | $1.04T | $57.4B | $448.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $16.1B | $2.98T | $1.09T | $57.5B | $442.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 22.90x | 37.82x | 47.69x | 15.49x | 55.58x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 18.71x | 34.77x | 44.71x | 15.74x | 49.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.35x | 4.33x | — | 3.68x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 15.21x | 20.47x | 24.85x | 7.26x | 34.55x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.50x | 4.07x | 1.46x | 0.55x | 1.63x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 6.01x | 7.14x | 10.45x | 3.55x | 15.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 33.75x | 378.98x | 24.97x | 20.23x | 57.24x |
Profitability & Efficiency
COST leads this category, winning 6 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 $22 for WMT. 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), COST scores 7/9 vs TGT's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +28.0% | +23.3% | +22.3% | +26.1% | +28.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +14.2% | +11.5% | +7.9% | +6.9% | +10.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +26.0% | +14.7% | +14.7% | +16.7% | +34.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +28.6% | +15.3% | +17.5% | +13.6% | +27.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.34x | 0.37x | 0.67x | 0.35x | 0.28x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $124M | $66.2B | $56.4B | $104M | -$6.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $777M | $86.8B | $10.7B | $5.5B | $14.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $902M | $153.0B | $67.1B | $5.6B | $8.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 26.93x | 39.96x | 11.85x | 12.40x | 77.52x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — SN and AMZN each lead in 2 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, AMZN leads with a +43.7% total return vs COST's +1.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SN at 39.2% vs TGT's -3.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -0.6% | +19.7% | +15.7% | +26.4% | +18.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +39.3% | +43.7% | +32.7% | +36.6% | +1.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +169.9% | +156.2% | +160.5% | -11.0% | +108.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +169.9% | +64.8% | +186.9% | -31.6% | +172.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +169.9% | +697.8% | +499.5% | +99.5% | +625.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +39.2% | +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 SN's 1.88 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 SN's 84.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.88x | 1.51x | 0.12x | 0.95x | 0.13x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $133.99 | $278.56 | $134.69 | $133.07 | $1067.08 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $79.33 | $185.01 | $91.89 | $83.44 | $846.80 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +84.4% | +97.3% | +96.7% | +94.6% | +94.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 52.3 | 81.1 | 55.9 | 61.4 | 47.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.7M | 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: SN as "Buy", AMZN as "Buy", WMT as "Buy", TGT as "Hold", COST as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 36.0% upside for SN (target: $154) 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 | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $153.83 | $306.77 | $137.04 | $115.31 | $1070.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 94 | 64 | 59 | 58 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +0.7% | +3.6% | +0.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | — | 37 | 22 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $0.94 | $4.51 | $4.91 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.8% | +0.7% | +0.2% |
SN leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). TGT leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
SN vs AMZN vs WMT vs TGT vs COST: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SN or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST a better buy right now?
For growth investors, SharkNinja, Inc.
(SN) is the stronger pick with 15. 7% 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 SharkNinja, Inc. (SN) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 — SN or AMZN 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, 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: 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 — SN 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 -31. 6% for Target Corporation (TGT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +697. 8% 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 — SN 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 SharkNinja, Inc. 's 1. 88β — meaning SN is approximately 1508% 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 — SN or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), SharkNinja, Inc.
(SN) is pulling ahead at 15. 7% versus -1. 7% for Target Corporation (TGT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: SharkNinja, Inc. grew EPS 58. 8% year-over-year, compared to -8. 2% for Target Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, SN leads at 19. 8% 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 — SN or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
SharkNinja, Inc.
(SN) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 0% net margin versus 2. 9% for Costco Wholesale Corporation — meaning it keeps 11. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SN leads at 14. 4% 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 SN 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, 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 SN: 36. 0% to $153. 83.
08Which pays a better dividend — SN or AMZN or WMT or TGT or COST?
In this comparison, TGT (3.
6% yield), WMT (0. 7% yield), COST (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. SN, AMZN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is SN 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). SharkNinja, Inc. (SN) carries a higher beta of 1. 88 — 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%, SN: +169. 9%), 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 SN and AMZN and WMT and TGT and COST?
These companies operate in different sectors (SN (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: SN is a mid-cap high-growth 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. WMT, TGT pay a dividend while SN, 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.