Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions
COST vs WMT
Costco Wholesale Corp versus Walmart Inc. — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.
WMT wins 5–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but COST can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
COST or WMT — which is better?
WMT wins this comparison 5–0 across 6 dimensions. WMT yields 0.83% — higher than COST's 0.56% — and carries a 8.8/10 dividend safety score (Strong) vs 8.3/10 for COST (Strong). WMT wins 5–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but COST can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
On yield alone, WMT generates 0.83% vs 0.56% — a 0.27% difference that translates to $270 more per year on a $100,000 investment. On dividend safety, WMT scores 8.8/10 (Strong) vs 8.3/10 (Strong) for COST — investors prioritizing income reliability should weight that gap alongside the yield difference.
Scorecard at a glance
| Dimension | COST | WMT | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | 0.56% | 0.83% | WMT wins |
| Dividend safety | 8.3/10 | 8.8/10 | WMT wins |
| Growth trend | -0.04% vs 5y | -0.30% vs 5y | WMT wins |
| Volatility (beta) | 0.91 | 0.58 | WMT wins |
| Scale | $465.4B | $942.3B | WMT wins |
| Tax efficiency | Qualified-eligible | Qualified-eligible | Tie |
| Overall | 0 wins | 5 wins | WMT wins |
Dimension by dimension
WMT wins on yield (0.83% vs 0.56%)
On a $10,000 investment that's about $27 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
WMT's higher yield (0.83%) 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.
WMT wins on safety (8.8/10 vs 8.3/10)
Our score combines yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size. WMT scores better on the weighted average of those factors.
WMT (8.8/10) scores 0.5 points higher than COST (8.3/10). A higher safety score means lower historical indicators of dividend cut risk — payout ratio, yield zone, and trend all factor in.
WMT shows healthier dividend-vs-price trend
WMT's yield is 0.30% below its 5y average, versus 0.04% for COST. Lower (or below-average) yield trend often means price appreciation outpaced distributions — a healthier signal.
WMT is less volatile (beta 0.58 vs 0.91)
Lower beta means smaller swings vs the S&P 500 — generally a steadier hold for income investors.
WMT is 2.0× larger by market cap
Larger companies tend to have tighter spreads, deeper liquidity, and lower closure risk.
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.
Full breakdown per ticker: are COST dividends qualified and are WMT dividends qualified — each with the after-tax income at every federal bracket.
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
COST or WMT — which is better?
WMT is better on our scoring, winning 5–0 across six dimensions: yield, dividend safety, growth, cost, scale, and tax treatment. WMT wins 5–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but COST can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
Which is better for income, COST or WMT?
WMT wins 5–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but COST can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
COST vs WMT: which has a higher dividend yield?
COST yields 0.56% and WMT yields 0.83%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $27 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
Is COST or WMT a safer dividend in 2026?
COST scores 8.3/10 (Strong) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. WMT scores 8.8/10 (Strong). WMT is the safer pick on our scoring model.
Which has better dividend growth, COST or WMT?
WMT's yield is 0.30% 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 WMT: 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 WMT data updates.
Compare both against your actual holdings
Put COST and WMT into the free analyzer with the rest of your portfolio. You'll see what each one contributes to your annual income, your weighted safety score, and whether adding WMT diversifies you or just duplicates what you hold. No account, no download.