Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions

COST vs TGT

Costco Wholesale Corporation versus Target Corporation — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.

COST and TGT are evenly matched (1–1 across six dimensions) — the right pick comes down to which dimension you weight most.

Neither COST nor TGT wins outright — the two are nearly equivalent across all 6 dimensions, making the choice largely a matter of which account you hold them in and personal preference on yield vs stability. COST and TGT are evenly matched (1–1 across six dimensions) — the right pick comes down to which dimension you weight most.

On yield alone, TGT generates 2.95% vs 0.56% — a 2.39% difference that translates to $2,390 more per year on a $100,000 investment.

Scorecard at a glance

Dimension	COST	TGT	Winner
Yield	0.56%	2.95%	TGT wins
Dividend safety	8.3/10	8.3/10	Tie
Growth trend	-0.04% vs 5y	-0.03% vs 5y	Tie
Volatility (beta)	0.91	0.99	Tie
Scale	$465.4B	$70.7B	COST wins
Tax efficiency	Qualified-eligible	Qualified-eligible	Tie
Overall	1 wins	1 wins	Tie

Dimension by dimension

TGT wins on yield (2.95% vs 0.56%)

On a $10,000 investment that's about $239 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.

TGT's higher yield (2.95%) 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: 0.56%TGT: 2.95%

Safety scores are too close to call (8.3/10 vs 8.3/10)

Both score within 0.3 points on our 0-10 dividend safety scale — comparable risk profiles on the signals we measure.

COST: 8.3/10TGT: 8.3/10

Yield trends are similar

Both tickers' current yields sit close to their 5-year averages, suggesting comparable dividend-vs-price trajectories.

COST: -0.04% vs 5yTGT: -0.03% vs 5y

Volatility (beta) is similar

Both tickers move with comparable sensitivity to the broader market.

COST: 0.91TGT: 0.99

COST is 6.6× larger by market cap

Larger companies tend to have tighter spreads, deeper liquidity, and lower closure risk.

COST: $465.4BTGT: $70.7B

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.

COST: Qualified-eligibleTGT: Qualified-eligible

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 TGT?

COST and TGT are evenly matched (1–1 across six dimensions) — the right pick comes down to which dimension you weight most.

COST vs TGT: which has a higher dividend yield?

COST yields 0.56% and TGT yields 2.95%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $239 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.

Is COST or TGT a safer dividend in 2026?

COST scores 8.3/10 (Strong) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. TGT scores 8.3/10 (Strong). Both have comparable safety scores.

Which has better dividend growth, COST or TGT?