BRK.B vs COST Stock Comparison
BRK.B currently leads COST in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 85 vs 62. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while COST has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between BRK.B and COST?
BRK.B leads the current stock comparison as BRK.B, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BRK.B vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
BRK.B leads
BRK.B leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors COST on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support BRK.B, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BRK.B over COST, 85 versus 62 as of Oct 21, 2026. BRK.B's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while COST holds the stronger momentum profile. BRK.B also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors COST. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BRK.B today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. BRK.B lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BRK.B and Costco Wholesale Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BRK.B and COST against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
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.
- Risk Resilience79 vs 71BRK.B +8
- Momentum89 vs 95COST +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor BRK.B. BRK.B’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; COST keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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.
BRK.B's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BRK.B and COST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BRK.B (BRK.B): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 17.2% against 9.5%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
BRK.BBRK.B on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
COSTCOST on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
BRK.BBRK.B on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
COSTCOST on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BRK.B, analyst targets favor COST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BRK.B | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.7% | +11.3% | COST has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +28.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor BRK.B. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BRK.B | 85 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | BRK.B | Price vs 50-day 5.9% vs 6.7%; vs 200-day 7.8% vs 2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BRK.B | Risk Resilience 79 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | COST | Target upside 6.7% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BRK.B and COST and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 BRK.B.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BRK.B lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BRK.B +23
- 85 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- BRK.B +22
- 84 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 54 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- COST +8
- 44 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when BRK.B 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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BRK.B
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.04%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.14%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only COST
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.41%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BRK.B 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 -0.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.37%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to BRK.B's edge.
- 2COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BRK.B's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
Split| Metric | BRK.B | 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 | BRK.B | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.7% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.2% | 10.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.3% | 7.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.2% | -1.1% |
| Year to date | 6.1% | 15.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.4% | 6.4% |
Technicals
BRK.B has the stronger structure| Metric | BRK.B | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 88 | 86 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 31.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.9% | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.8% | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.5% | 17.2% |
Risk
BRK.B is the more resilient| Metric | BRK.B | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.05 | -0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.62 | 0.31 |
| Max drawdown | -9.4% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -9.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BRK.B or COST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BRK.B is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 85 against COST's 62. The edge comes from risk resilience. COST is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 BRK.B or COST the better buy right now?
BRK.B carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BRK.B over COST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BRK.B leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; COST leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BRK.B or COST?
Analyst price targets imply +6.7% upside for BRK.B and +11.3% for COST, so the Street currently favors COST. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BRK.B. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BRK.B 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, BRK.B 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, BRK.B or COST?
COST on the Momentum factor, by 6 points. 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, BRK.B or COST?
BRK.B is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BRK.B on Risk Resilience, by 8 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BRK.B more profitable than COST?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is BRK.B's lead over COST getting stronger or weaker?
BRK.B lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when BRK.B moved ahead of COST.
What would change the BRK.B vs COST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COST closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to BRK.B's edge; COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BRK.B's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BRK.B and COST?
BRK.B: 6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. COST: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. 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 BRK.B is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On COST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BRK.B 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.