Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: COST stock price vs TSCO: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at TSCO's multiple
Needs TSCO P/E.
Implied fair value · at COST's multiple
Needs COST P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth edge
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Eight period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP /NEW · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
TRACTOR SUPPLY CO /DE/ · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
Edwyn research
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe COST deserves a persistent premium because of its superior scale and faster revenue growth, then avoid using TSCO as a strict valuation anchor for downside because TSCO comparison likely overstates fair value compression; if you think margin superiority should matter more, then TSCO remains the cheaper relative valuation, making COST look expensive on a TSCO basis.
On a P/E basis, COST screens far more expensive than TSCO at 52.4x versus 15.6x, which explains the large modeled downside to TSCO-based implied price of $283.85. However, COST also trades at 1.5x P/S and 37.3x EV/EBITDA versus TSCO's 1.1x P/S and 10.9x EV/EBITDA, showing the premium is broad but not universally extreme across sales-based measures.
Supporting Metrics
