COST vs MCD Stock Comparison
Costco Wholesale Corporation vs McDonald's Corporation
COST leads
COST leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors MCD on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support COST.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
McDonald's Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COST over MCD, 47 versus 41 as of Sep 2, 2026. COST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while MCD holds the stronger value profile. 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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.
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 Resilience15%69 vs 43COST +26
- Momentum25%37 vs 28COST +9
- Quality30%60 vs 56COST +4
- Value30%32 vs 36MCD +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor COST. COST’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; MCD keeps a meaningful value 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.
COST's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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 risk resilience and momentum.
MCD (McDonald's Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
MCDMCD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MCDMCD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
COSTCOST on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 | +19.9% | +22.4% | MCD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.7% | +31.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 14 | 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 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 | 47 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | MCDon balance | revenue growth 1.3% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 7.9% vs 19%; ROE 28.3% vs -5.6%; gross margin 12.9% vs 57.4%; operating margin 3.8% vs 46% — MCD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MCD | Value 32 vs 36 |
| Technicals | COST | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -1.7% vs -11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 69 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | MCD | Target upside 19.9% vs 22.4% |
✓ 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 · Apr 20 – Sep 1COST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COST +6
- 47 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- COST +7
- 47 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- COST +7
- 55 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- COST +4
- 45 vs 41
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.
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
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.83%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
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 -1.19%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.22%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 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 starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
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% | 46% |
| Return on equity | 28.3% | -5.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.25 | -53.36 |
Technicals
COST has the stronger structure| Metric | COST | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.9 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 12.4 | 13.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.7% | -11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.4% | 20.3% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | COST | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.15 | -0.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.1 | -1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.15 | -1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -13.8% | -22.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 20% | 18.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -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 Sep 2, 2026, scoring 47 against MCD's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. MCD 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 COST or MCD the better buy right now?
COST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 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 at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. COST leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; COST leads Momentum by 9 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 +19.9% upside for COST and +22.4% 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?
MCD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MCD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, 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 9 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, 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 26 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 COST more profitable than MCD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12.9% vs 57.4%; operating margin 3.8% vs 46%; 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 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 starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 COST and MCD?
COST: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. MCD: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. 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
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.