Costco Wholesale Corporation

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, WMT has a market cap of 794.73B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while WMT trades at $99.33.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas WMT's P/E ratio is 41.22. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to WMT's ROE of +0.23%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is more volatile compared to WMT. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, WMMVY has a market cap of 54.19B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while WMMVY trades at $31.12.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas WMMVY's P/E ratio is 20.88. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to WMMVY's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to WMMVY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, WMMVF has a market cap of 53.85B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while WMMVF trades at $3.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas WMMVF's P/E ratio is 20.58. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to WMMVF's ROE of +0.24%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is more volatile compared to WMMVF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, TGT has a market cap of 42.73B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while TGT trades at $94.04.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas TGT's P/E ratio is 10.61. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to TGT's ROE of +0.28%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to TGT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, DLMAF has a market cap of 34.26B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while DLMAF trades at $123.65.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas DLMAF's P/E ratio is 40.94. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to DLMAF's ROE of +1.15%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is more volatile compared to DLMAF. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, DG has a market cap of 20.28B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while DG trades at $92.19.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas DG's P/E ratio is 18.04. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to DG's ROE of +0.16%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to DG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, DQJCY has a market cap of 18.56B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while DQJCY trades at $31.09.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas DQJCY's P/E ratio is 28.26. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to DQJCY's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to DQJCY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, DLTR has a market cap of 18.06B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while DLTR trades at $83.95.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas DLTR's P/E ratio is 17.38. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to DLTR's ROE of -0.46%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to DLTR. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, BJ has a market cap of 15.72B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while BJ trades at $119.41.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas BJ's P/E ratio is 29.85. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to BJ's ROE of +0.31%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to BJ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, OLLI has a market cap of 6.80B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while OLLI trades at $110.96.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas OLLI's P/E ratio is 34.35. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to OLLI's ROE of +0.12%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to OLLI. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, BMRRY has a market cap of 4.58B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while BMRRY trades at $18.24.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas BMRRY's P/E ratio is 10.54. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to BMRRY's ROE of +0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to BMRRY. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, BMRPF has a market cap of 4.56B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while BMRPF trades at $4.54.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas BMRPF's P/E ratio is 10.56. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to BMRPF's ROE of +0.44%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to BMRPF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, TBBB has a market cap of 3.46B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while TBBB trades at $30.88.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas TBBB's P/E ratio is 257.33. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to TBBB's ROE of +0.09%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to TBBB. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, PSMT has a market cap of 3.09B. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while PSMT trades at $100.43.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas PSMT's P/E ratio is 21.41. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to PSMT's ROE of +0.13%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to PSMT. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, BIG has a market cap of 14.75M. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while BIG trades at $0.50.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas BIG's P/E ratio is -0.03. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to BIG's ROE of -3.58%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to BIG. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, DIDAF has a market cap of 11.61M. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while DIDAF trades at $0.20.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas DIDAF's P/E ratio is 0.18. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to DIDAF's ROE of +0.92%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to DIDAF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, BIGGQ has a market cap of 593880.00. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while BIGGQ trades at $0.02.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas BIGGQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to BIGGQ's ROE of N/A. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to BIGGQ. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, TUEMQ has a market cap of 4756.00. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while TUEMQ trades at $0.00.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas TUEMQ's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to TUEMQ's ROE of -1.30%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is more volatile compared to TUEMQ. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, LWSOF has a market cap of 127.00. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while LWSOF trades at $63.52.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas LWSOF's P/E ratio is 0.00. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to LWSOF's ROE of +0.19%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is less volatile compared to LWSOF. This indicates potentially lower risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.

COST plays a significant role within the Consumer Defensive sector. Its performance reflects broader market trends and attracts considerable investor interest.

Comparing market capitalization, COST stands at 450.29B. In comparison, TUEM comparison data is unavailable. Regarding current trading prices, COST is priced at $1,014.89, while TUEM trades at $0.48.

To assess relative profitability and valuation, we examine the Return on Equity (ROE) and Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratios.

COST currently has a P/E ratio of 59.21, whereas TUEM's P/E ratio is N/A. In terms of profitability, COST's ROE is +0.32%, compared to TUEM's ROE of -1.30%. Regarding short-term risk, COST is more volatile compared to TUEM. This indicates potentially higher risk in terms of short-term price fluctuations for COST.