AMZN vs COST Stock Comparison
Amazon.com, Inc. vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
AMZN leads
AMZN leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AMZN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amazon.com, Inc.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMZN over COST, 51 versus 47 as of Sep 2, 2026. AMZN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while COST holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AMZN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMZN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. AMZN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amazon.com, Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality30%77 vs 60AMZN +17
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 69COST +16
- Momentum25%48 vs 37AMZN +11
- Value30%27 vs 32COST +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AMZN. AMZN’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; COST keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
AMZN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMZN and COST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMZN (Amazon.com, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
AMZNAMZN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
AMZNAMZN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
COSTCOST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
AMZNAMZN on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
AMZNAMZN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AMZN | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.7% | +19.9% | AMZN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +35.5% | +24.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 30 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMZN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMZN | 51 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | AMZN | revenue growth 10.5% vs 1.3%; EPS growth 106.4% vs 7.9%; ROE 30.5% vs 28.3%; gross margin 50.8% vs 12.9%; operating margin 12.1% vs 3.8% |
| Valuation | COST | Value 27 vs 32 |
| Technicals | AMZN | Price vs 50-day 1.3% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 8.8% vs -1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 53 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | AMZN | Target upside 26.7% vs 19.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMZN and COST and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on AMZN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1AMZN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMZN +4
- 51 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- AMZN +1
- 48 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- AMZN +5
- 60 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when AMZN moved ahead of COST.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.54%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.53%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
AMZN leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.17%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.18%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1COST closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMZN's edge.
- 2COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AMZN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
AMZN leads on balance| Metric | AMZN | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 106.4% | 7.9% |
| Gross margin | 50.8% | 12.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.1% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity | 30.5% | 28.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.4 | 0.25 |
Technicals
AMZN has the stronger structure| Metric | AMZN | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.1 | 49.9 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 12.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.3% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.8% | -1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.9% | 19.4% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | AMZN | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.44 | -0.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.73 | -0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -21.7% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -8.5% | -13.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.8% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMZN or COST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMZN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 51 against COST's 47. The edge comes from quality and momentum. COST is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AMZN or COST the better buy right now?
AMZN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMZN over COST?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AMZN leads Quality by 17 points; COST leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; AMZN leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMZN or COST?
Analyst price targets imply +26.7% upside for AMZN and +19.9% for COST, so the Street currently favors AMZN. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AMZN or COST?
COST is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. COST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AMZN or COST?
AMZN on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AMZN or COST?
AMZN on the Momentum factor, by 11 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AMZN or COST?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 16 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AMZN more profitable than COST?
AMZN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.8% vs 12.9%; operating margin 12.1% vs 3.8%; roe 30.5% vs 28.3%.
Is AMZN's lead over COST getting stronger or weaker?
AMZN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when AMZN moved ahead of COST.
What would change the AMZN vs COST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COST closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMZN's edge; COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AMZN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AMZN and COST?
AMZN: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. COST: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AMZN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On COST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMZN and COST with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.