BJ vs COST Stock Comparison
Compare BJ vs COST on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between BJ and COST?
BJ and COST are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BJ vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
BJ and COST are effectively level
BJ and COST are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate BJ and COST as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare BJ and Costco Wholesale Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BJ and COST against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BJ and COST both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BJ | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +11.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +28.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Not covered | Not covered |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | Not covered | Not covered |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
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.
No signal data
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.41%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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
Split| Metric | BJ | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 7.9% |
| Gross margin | — | 12.9% |
| Operating margin | — | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | 28.3% |
| Debt to equity | — | 0.25 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BJ | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | 10.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | 7.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | -1.1% |
| Year to date | — | 15.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 6.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BJ | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 86 |
| ADX (14) | — | 31.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 17.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BJ | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | — | -0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | — | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | — | 0.31 |
| Max drawdown | — | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | — | -9.1% |
| Annualized volatility | — | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | — | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, BJ or COST?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for BJ and +11.3% for COST. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BJ or COST?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, BJ or COST?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, BJ or COST?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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, BJ or COST?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BJ more profitable than COST?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Compare BJ and COST with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.