COST vs MCD Stock Comparison
COST currently leads MCD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between COST and MCD?
COST leads the current stock comparison as Costco Wholesale Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Costco Wholesale Corporation vs McDonald's Corporation
COST leads
COST leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MCD on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support COST, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
McDonald's Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COST over MCD, 62 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. COST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. COST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MCD. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COST today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. COST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Costco Wholesale Corporation and McDonald's 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 COST and MCD 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.
- Momentum95 vs 66COST +29
- Risk Resilience71 vs 42COST +29
- Quality60 vs 56COST +4
- Value32 vs 35Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor COST. COST’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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.
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
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
COST's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COST and MCD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
MCD (McDonald's Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 23.5% against 17.2%.
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
COSTCOST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MCDMCD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
COSTCOST on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
MCDMCD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors COST, analyst targets favor MCD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | COST | MCD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +21.3% | MCD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.8% | +40.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 19 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | COST | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.97% | 7.30% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.750 | $5.040 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.060 | $7.170 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #52 | #173 |
COST grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.97% a year against MCD's 7.30%. 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
3 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 | 62 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | MCDon balance | revenue growth 1.3% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 7.9% vs 19%; TTM ROE 28.3% vs -5.6%; gross margin 12.9% vs 57.4%; operating margin 3.8% vs 45.8% — MCD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 35 |
| Technicals | COST | Price vs 50-day 6.7% vs -2%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs -13.6% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 71 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | MCD | Target upside 11.3% vs 21.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COST and MCD 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20COST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COST +12
- 62 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- COST +14
- 62 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- COST +15
- 54 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- COST +10
- 52 vs 42
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when COST moved ahead of MCD.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only MCD
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, 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 +0.37%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.11%, 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.
- 1MCD closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge.
- 2MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3COST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-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
MCD leads on balance| Metric | COST | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.3% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.9% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 12.9% | 57.4% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 45.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.3% | -5.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.25 | -53.36 |
Performance
COST leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | COST | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.2% | 4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.6% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.3% | -6.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | -18.3% |
| Year to date | 15.3% | -19.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.4% | -19.3% |
Technicals
COST has the stronger structure| Metric | COST | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 86 | 82.7 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 37.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.7% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | -13.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.2% | 23.5% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | COST | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.18 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | -1.85 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -32.3% |
| Current drawdown | -9.1% | -27.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 19.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COST or MCD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against MCD's 50. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 COST or MCD the better buy right now?
COST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor COST over MCD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COST leads Momentum by 29 points; COST leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; COST leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COST or MCD?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for COST and +21.3% for MCD, so the Street currently favors MCD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors COST. 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, COST or MCD?
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, COST or MCD?
MCD 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, COST or MCD?
COST on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, COST or MCD?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 COST more profitable than MCD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12.9% vs 57.4%; operating margin 3.8% vs 45.8%; ttm roe 28.3% vs -5.6%. COST leads on one measure and MCD on two measures, 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 MCD getting stronger or weaker?
COST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when COST moved ahead of MCD.
What would change the COST vs MCD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MCD closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge; MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; COST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate COST's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about COST and MCD?
COST: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MCD: 2 bullish / 4 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 COST is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MCD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare COST and MCD 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.