WMT vs COST Stock Comparison
COST currently leads WMT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 54. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between WMT and COST?
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
Walmart Inc. vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
COST leads
COST leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support COST, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Walmart Inc.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COST over WMT, 62 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. COST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. COST also shows the weaker 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: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. COST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Walmart Inc. 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 WMT 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.
- Momentum76 vs 95COST +19
- Risk Resilience55 vs 71COST +16
- Quality53 vs 60COST +7
- Value35 vs 32Even
2 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: Momentum -7
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
COST's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WMT and COST 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.
WMT (Walmart Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 24.4% against 17.2%.
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
WMTWMT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
COSTCOST on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | WMT | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11% | +11.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +34.4% | +28.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | WMT | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.48% | 12.97% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $2.750 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.940 | $5.060 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #232 | #52 |
COST grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.97% a year against WMT's 5.48%. 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 | COST | 54 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | WMTon balance | revenue growth 5.7% vs 1.3%; EPS growth 19.4% vs 7.9%; TTM ROE 22.7% vs 28.3%; gross margin 25.2% vs 12.9%; operating margin 4.4% vs 3.8% — WMT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 32 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 7.9% vs 6.7%; vs 200-day -0.4% vs 2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 55 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 11% vs 11.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WMT and COST 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 8 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COST +8
- 54 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- COST +8
- 54 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- COST +8
- 46 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- COST +5
- 47 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when COST moved ahead of WMT.
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.
WMT and COST carry the same 4 signals, so the signals 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 -0.04%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1WMT closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge.
- 2WMT'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
WMT leads on balance| Metric | WMT | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.7% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19.4% | 7.9% |
| Gross margin | 25.2% | 12.9% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.7% | 28.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.75 | 0.25 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | WMT | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7% | 10.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.8% | 7.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.1% | -1.1% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | 15.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.7% | 6.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | WMT | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.7 | 86 |
| ADX (14) | 27.6 | 31.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.9% | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.4% | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.4% | 17.2% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | WMT | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.1 | -0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.43 | 0.31 |
| Max drawdown | -23.5% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | -12.2% | -9.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.3% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WMT or COST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against WMT's 54. 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 WMT or COST 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: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor COST over WMT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COST leads Momentum by 19 points; COST leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; COST leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WMT or COST?
Analyst price targets imply +11% upside for WMT and +11.3% for 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, WMT 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, WMT or COST?
WMT 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, WMT or COST?
COST on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, WMT or COST?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 WMT more profitable than COST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25.2% vs 12.9%; operating margin 4.4% vs 3.8%; ttm roe 22.7% vs 28.3%. WMT 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 WMT getting stronger or weaker?
COST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 WMT.
What would change the WMT vs COST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WMT closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to COST's edge; WMT'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 WMT and COST?
WMT: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 WMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On COST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare WMT 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.