COST vs XLP Stock Comparison
Compare COST vs XLP on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between COST and XLP?
COST and XLP are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Costco Wholesale Corporation vs State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF
COST and XLP are effectively level
COST and XLP are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Costco Wholesale Corporation
State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate COST and XLP as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Costco Wholesale Corporation and State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 XLP 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 81COST +14
- Quality60 vs 68XLP +8
- Value32 vs 39XLP +7
- Risk Resilience71 vs 64COST +7
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COST and XLP both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLPXLP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
COSTCOST on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 | COST | XLP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +28.8% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLP | Value 32 vs 39 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 6.7% vs 3.5%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs 4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 71 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20COST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 62 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 62 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- COST +3
- 54 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- XLP +4
- 52 vs 56
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 25 when COST moved ahead of XLP.
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
Only COST
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.41%)
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XLP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.10%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.28%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -0.73%, AIQ 0 points).
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
Split| Metric | COST | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.3% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 12.9% | — |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 28.3% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.25 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | COST | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.6% | 6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.3% | 4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | 7.2% |
| Year to date | 15.3% | 13% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.4% | 11.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | COST | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 86 | 83.4 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 28.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.7% | 3.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | 4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.2% | 14.8% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | COST | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.18 | -0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.79 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.1% | -2.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 14.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, COST or XLP?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for COST and not covered for XLP. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, COST or XLP?
XLP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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 XLP?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 XLP?
COST on the Momentum factor, by 14 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 XLP?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 XLP?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about COST and XLP?
COST: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. XLP: 6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 XLP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.