Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions
COST vs KO
Costco Wholesale Corporation versus The Coca-Cola Company — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.
KO wins 3–1 on our six-dimension comparison, but COST can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
Scorecard at a glance
| Dimension | COST | KO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | 0.56% | 2.38% | KO wins |
| Dividend safety | 8.3/10 | 8.0/10 | COST wins |
| Growth trend | -0.04% vs 5y | -0.50% vs 5y | KO wins |
| Volatility (beta) | 0.91 | 0.35 | KO wins |
| Scale | $465.4B | $380.7B | Tie |
| Tax efficiency | Qualified-eligible | Qualified-eligible | Tie |
| Overall | 1 wins | 3 wins | KO wins |
Dimension by dimension
KO wins on yield (2.38% vs 0.56%)
On a $10,000 investment that's about $182 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
KO's higher yield (2.38%) looks attractive but investors should weigh whether the extra income compensates for any additional risk versus COST's 0.56% — especially if the higher yield is driven by covered calls or a falling share price.
COST wins on safety (8.3/10 vs 8.0/10)
Our score combines yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size. COST scores better on the weighted average of those factors.
KO shows healthier dividend-vs-price trend
KO's yield is 0.50% below its 5y average, versus 0.04% for COST. Lower (or below-average) yield trend often means price appreciation outpaced distributions — a healthier signal.
KO is less volatile (beta 0.35 vs 0.91)
Lower beta means smaller swings vs the S&P 500 — generally a steadier hold for income investors.
Comparable scale ($465.4B vs $380.7B)
Within 1.5x of each other on market cap / AUM — similar institutional footprint.
Both pay qualified-dividend-eligible distributions
Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.
How we compare these
Every comparison on this page is computed from current public data, not written by hand. Yield comes from the most recent dividend distribution annualized over current price. Safety scores combine yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size — see our methodology for the exact formula. Tax-efficiency flags identify covered-call ETFs, REITs, and mREITs which distribute primarily as ordinary income.
This is educational, not investment advice.Scores reflect a snapshot of public data on the "as of" dates shown on each ticker's safety page. Verify on the issuer's investor relations page or your brokerage before making decisions.
Frequently asked
Which is better for income, COST or KO?
KO wins 3–1 on our six-dimension comparison, but COST can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
COST vs KO: which has a higher dividend yield?
COST yields 0.56% and KO yields 2.38%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $182 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
Is COST or KO a safer dividend in 2026?
COST scores 8.3/10 (Strong) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. KO scores 8.0/10 (Strong). COST is the safer pick on our scoring model.
Which has better dividend growth, COST or KO?
KO's yield is 0.50% below its 5y average, versus 0.04% for COST. Lower (or below-average) yield trend often means price appreciation outpaced distributions — a healthier signal.
COST vs KO: which is more tax-efficient?
Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.
Get emailed when COST vs KO data updates.
Already own COST or KO? See if the other adds anything.
Connect your brokerage and Infnits checks whether adding KO to your existing portfolio actually diversifies — or just duplicates exposure (ETF look-through included).
Check overlap with my portfolio →