COST vs PG Stock Comparison
COST currently leads PG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 61. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while PG has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between COST and PG?
COST leads the current stock comparison as Costco Wholesale Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Costco Wholesale Corporation vs The Procter & Gamble Company
COST leads
COST leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from PG.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support COST, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COST over PG, 62 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. COST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while PG holds the stronger quality profile. COST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COST today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. COST lead: Reversed — PG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; COST now leads by 1.
Compare Costco Wholesale Corporation and The Procter & Gamble Company 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 PG 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 Resilience71 vs 54COST +17
- Quality60 vs 73PG +13
- Momentum95 vs 82COST +13
- Value32 vs 34Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor COST. COST’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; PG keeps a meaningful quality 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: 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
COST's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COST and PG 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.
PG (The Procter & Gamble Company): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
COSTCOST on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 | COST | PG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +0.9% | COST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.8% | +19% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | COST | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.97% | 6.02% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.750 | $3.118 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.060 | $4.177 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #52 | #210 |
COST grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.97% a year against PG's 6.02%. 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
2 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 | Even | 62 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | PGon balance | revenue growth 1.3% vs -0.2%; EPS growth 7.9% vs -23.5%; TTM ROE 28.3% vs 29.8%; gross margin 12.9% vs 50.2%; operating margin 3.8% vs 22.7% — PG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 34 |
| Technicals | PG | Price vs 50-day 6.7% vs 6.4%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs 7.4% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 71 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | COST | Target upside 11.3% vs 0.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COST and PG 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Reversed — PG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; COST now leads by 1.
- Today
- COST +1
- 62 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- COST +1
- 62 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- PG +6
- 54 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- COST +5
- 52 vs 47
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when PG 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only PG
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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 -1.56%, 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.
- 1PG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge.
- 2PG'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.
- 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
PG leads on balance| Metric | COST | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.3% | -0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.9% | -23.5% |
| Gross margin | 12.9% | 50.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 22.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.3% | 29.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.25 | 0.64 |
Performance
COST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | COST | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.2% | 4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.6% | 7.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.3% | 6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | 9.3% |
| Year to date | 15.3% | 11.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.4% | 6.5% |
Technicals
PG has the stronger structure| Metric | COST | PG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 86 | 82 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 28.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.7% | 6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | 7.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.2% | 18.9% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | COST | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.18 | -0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -9.1% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 19.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COST or PG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against PG's 61. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. PG is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 PG the better buy right now?
COST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor COST over PG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COST leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; PG leads Quality by 13 points; COST leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COST or PG?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for COST and +0.9% for PG, 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, COST or PG?
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 PG?
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, COST or PG?
COST on the Momentum factor, by 13 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 PG?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 PG?
PG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 12.9% vs 50.2%; operating margin 3.8% vs 22.7%; ttm roe 28.3% vs 29.8%.
Is COST's lead over PG getting stronger or weaker?
COST lead: Reversed — PG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; COST now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when PG moved ahead of COST.
What would change the COST vs PG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge; PG'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; 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 COST and PG?
COST: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. PG: 3 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 COST is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On PG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare COST and PG 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.