CLX vs COST Stock Comparison
COST currently leads CLX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while CLX has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CLX and COST?
COST leads the current stock comparison as Costco Wholesale Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Clorox Company vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
COST leads
COST leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 24 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support COST, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Clorox Company
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COST over CLX, 60 versus 46 as of Nov 7, 2026. COST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CLX holds the stronger value profile. COST also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COST today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. COST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Clorox Company 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 CLX 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.
- Quality19 vs 60COST +41
- Risk Resilience36 vs 67COST +31
- Value45 vs 32CLX +13
- Momentum84 vs 90COST +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor COST. COST’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CLX keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
COST's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLX and COST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CLX (The Clorox Company): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 35.5% against 23.9%.
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
COSTCOST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
COSTCOST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLXCLX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
COSTCOST on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
COSTCOST 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 | CLX | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6.4% | +5.5% | COST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.7% | +28.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CLX | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.54% | 12.97% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.340 | $2.750 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.920 | $5.060 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #314 | #52 |
COST grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.97% a year against CLX's 2.54%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | COST | 46 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | CLXon balance | revenue growth 16.6% vs 1.3%; EPS growth -13% vs 7.9%; TTM ROE -18.9% vs 28.3%; gross margin 42.3% vs 12.9%; operating margin 24.7% vs 3.8% — CLX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLX | Value 45 vs 32 |
| Technicals | COST | Price vs 50-day 14% vs 10.6%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs 8.2% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 36 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | COST | Target upside -6.4% vs 5.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLX 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 COST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6COST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COST +14
- 46 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- COST +20
- 38 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- COST +24
- 38 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- COST +12
- 30 vs 42
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only CLX
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only COST
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, MACD Bullish Crossover.
COST 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 +0.26%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.13%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1CLX closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge.
- 2CLX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3COST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate COST's advantage entirely.
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
CLX leads on balance| Metric | CLX | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.6% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -13% | 7.9% |
| Gross margin | 42.3% | 12.9% |
| Operating margin | 24.7% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -18.9% | 28.3% |
| Debt to equity | 61.33 | 0.25 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CLX | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 12.1% | 4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.3% | 11.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.2% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.5% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | -0.9% | 22.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.8% | 12.7% |
Technicals
COST has the stronger structure| Metric | CLX | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 77 | 64.4 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 43.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14% | 10.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | 8.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.5% | 23.9% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | CLX | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | -0.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.21 | 0.87 |
| Max drawdown | -36.8% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -3.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | 20.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLX or COST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COST is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 60 against CLX's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CLX is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CLX or COST the better buy right now?
COST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 COST over CLX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COST leads Quality by 41 points; COST leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; CLX leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLX or COST?
Analyst price targets imply -6.4% upside for CLX and +5.5% for COST, so the Street currently favors COST. 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, CLX or COST?
CLX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, CLX or COST?
COST 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, CLX 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, CLX or COST?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 CLX more profitable than COST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.3% vs 12.9%; operating margin 24.7% vs 3.8%; ttm roe -18.9% vs 28.3%. CLX leads on two measures and COST on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is COST's lead over CLX getting stronger or weaker?
COST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 24 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CLX vs COST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLX closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge; CLX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; COST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate COST's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLX and COST?
CLX: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. COST: 3 bullish / 1 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 CLX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On COST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CLX 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.