JNJ vs COST Stock Comparison
Johnson & Johnson vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
JNJ leads
JNJ leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors COST on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support JNJ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Johnson & Johnson
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JNJ over COST, 59 versus 47 as of Sep 2, 2026. JNJ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while COST holds the stronger risk resilience profile. JNJ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors COST. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JNJ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. JNJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Johnson & Johnson and Costco Wholesale 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.
- Momentum25%66 vs 37JNJ +29
- Quality30%77 vs 60JNJ +17
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 69COST +16
- Value30%37 vs 32JNJ +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor JNJ. JNJ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; COST keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
JNJ's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JNJ and COST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
JNJJNJ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
JNJJNJ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JNJJNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
JNJJNJ on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
COSTCOST on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JNJ, analyst targets favor COST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JNJ | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0% | +19.9% | COST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +20% | +24.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 10 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JNJ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JNJ | 59 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | JNJon balance | revenue growth 5.2% vs 1.3%; EPS growth 6.1% vs 7.9%; ROE 25.7% vs 28.3%; gross margin 70.5% vs 12.9%; operating margin 26.8% vs 3.8% — JNJ takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JNJ | Value 37 vs 32 |
| Technicals | JNJ | Price vs 50-day 6.2% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 13.5% vs -1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 53 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | COST | Target upside 0% vs 19.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JNJ and COST and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 JNJ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1JNJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JNJ +12
- 59 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- JNJ +12
- 59 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- JNJ +5
- 60 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +18
- 63 vs 45
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 17 when JNJ 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.52%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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
JNJ 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 +1.36%, AIQ 0 points).
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).
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.
- 1COST closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge.
- 2COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JNJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
JNJ leads on balance| Metric | JNJ | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.1% | 7.9% |
| Gross margin | 70.5% | 12.9% |
| Operating margin | 26.8% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity | 25.7% | 28.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 0.25 |
Technicals
JNJ has the stronger structure| Metric | JNJ | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.4 | 49.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.9 | 12.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.2% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.5% | -1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.3% | 19.4% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | JNJ | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.22 | -0.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.1 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.42 | -0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -2.8% | -13.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.9% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JNJ or COST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JNJ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 59 against COST's 47. The edge comes from momentum and quality. COST is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 JNJ or COST the better buy right now?
JNJ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JNJ over COST?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. JNJ leads Momentum by 29 points; JNJ leads Quality by 17 points; COST leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JNJ or COST?
Analyst price targets imply +0% upside for JNJ and +19.9% for COST, so the Street currently favors COST. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JNJ. 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, JNJ or COST?
JNJ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, JNJ or COST?
JNJ 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, JNJ or COST?
JNJ on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, JNJ 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. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is JNJ more profitable than COST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 70.5% vs 12.9%; operating margin 26.8% vs 3.8%; roe 25.7% vs 28.3%. JNJ 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 JNJ's lead over COST getting stronger or weaker?
JNJ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-17, when JNJ moved ahead of COST.
What would change the JNJ vs COST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COST closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to JNJ's edge; COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JNJ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 JNJ and COST?
JNJ: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. COST: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 JNJ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On COST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JNJ and COST 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.