COST vs WMT: side-by-side analysis

Where COST and WMT sit on fair value

COST's composite fair-value range is $385–$683 (midpoint $534), versus a current price of $1012. WMT is one of COST's closest sector neighbours and shows up directly in the peer table inside our full report, with a market-cap of $1.05T, P/E of 39.9x, EV/EBITDA of 25.0x, and an operating margin of 4.6%. The cross-read is editorial: same archetype expectations, same discount-rate philosophy, different operating model.

Both names are evaluated under the same six-factor decision overlay (customer value, unit economics, TAM, moat durability, risk profile, valuation) so comparing them is apples-to-apples rather than headline-multiple-to-headline-multiple. The rating differential between COST and WMT is driven by where each lands across those six axes, not by who looks "cheaper" on a single screen.

Where they actually differ

COST is classified as a mature compounder stock; the archetype dictates our deceleration curve, terminal multiple, and probability weights. WMT, depending on its own archetype, will have its own calibration — and that is precisely why simple peer multiples can mislead. A 45.0× forward P/E with a PEG of 7.50 is not the same on COST as it is on WMT unless they share the same growth profile, capital intensity, and moat half-life.

COST's moat assessment is 9/10, and the full moat section in the report covers the source (network effects, switching costs, intangibles, scale, etc.) plus the timeline of any threats. The cross-read against WMT should focus on which company's economic profit (ROIC minus WACC) is wider AND more durable — that is the variable that dominates long-run total return between two same-sector names.

Which one wins on each dimension

Valuation: COST looks meaningfully overvalued versus our fair-value midpoint. The full report's peer table compares COST and WMT directly on P/E, PEG, EV/EBITDA, ROE, and operating margin. Risk: the bear case for COST is bound by the kill-scenarios list in Section 2; the equivalent for WMT would need its own report. We do not co-rate two companies on a single page.

Capital allocation and growth runway typically separate same-sector pairs more than the headline numbers suggest. The full report's capital-allocation paragraph and TAM analysis are the lenses we recommend before deciding whether COST or WMT is the better expression of the same theme.

Bottom line — COST or WMT?

Our rating for COST is Sell with a 88/100 confidence score; the rating already accounts for the relative-value information embedded in the peer table that includes WMT. The cross-read is most useful when the two companies are real substitutes in a portfolio (same factor exposure, same end markets, same archetype) — otherwise the comparison is theatre.

For the full evidence on COST, including the explicit peer multiples versus WMT and the rest of the comp set, see the canonical report at /stocks/cost/analysis. For WMT's standalone report, see /stocks/wmt/analysis.

Frequently asked questions