LLY vs COST Stock Comparison
Compare LLY vs COST 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 LLY and COST?
LLY and COST 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
Eli Lilly and Company vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
LLY and COST are effectively level
LLY and COST are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Eli Lilly and Company
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate LLY and COST 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 Eli Lilly and Company 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 LLY 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.
- Risk Resilience50 vs 71COST +21
- Quality76 vs 60LLY +16
- Value26 vs 32COST +6
- Momentum95 vs 95Even
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: Momentum +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LLY and COST 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
LLYLLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
COSTCOST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 | LLY | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.5% | +11.3% | COST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.2% | +28.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | LLY | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 15.18% | 12.97% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.960 | $2.750 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.000 | $5.060 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #34 | #52 |
LLY grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.18% a year against COST's 12.97%. 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | LLYon balance | revenue growth 16% vs 1.3%; EPS growth -3.9% vs 7.9%; TTM ROE 92.6% vs 28.3%; gross margin 84% vs 12.9%; operating margin 43.9% vs 3.8% — LLY takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | COST | Value 26 vs 32 |
| Technicals | LLY | Price vs 50-day 7.5% vs 6.7%; vs 200-day 18.7% vs 2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 50 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | COST | Target upside 4.5% vs 11.3% |
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 6 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 20LLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 62 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- COST +1
- 61 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- LLY +9
- 63 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- COST +1
- 51 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when COST moved ahead of LLY.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only LLY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.31%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only COST
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.41%)
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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.01%, AIQ +2 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).
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
LLY leads on balance| Metric | LLY | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3.9% | 7.9% |
| Gross margin | 84% | 12.9% |
| Operating margin | 43.9% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 92.6% | 28.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.62 | 0.25 |
Performance
LLY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LLY | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.7% | 10.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.4% | 7.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 42.2% | -1.1% |
| Year to date | 19.4% | 15.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 56.7% | 6.4% |
Technicals
LLY has the stronger structure| Metric | LLY | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.4 | 86 |
| ADX (14) | 25.2 | 31.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.5% | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.7% | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.4% | 17.2% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | LLY | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | -0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.41 | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.62 | 0.31 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -9.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.9% | 19.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, LLY or COST?
Analyst price targets imply +4.5% upside for LLY and +11.3% for COST, so the Street currently favors COST. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, LLY or COST?
COST is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. COST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, LLY or COST?
LLY 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, LLY or COST?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, LLY or COST?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 LLY more profitable than COST?
LLY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 84% vs 12.9%; operating margin 43.9% vs 3.8%; ttm roe 92.6% vs 28.3%.
What do the current signals say about LLY and COST?
LLY: 6 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 LLY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On COST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LLY 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.