Quick Summary — COST scores higher on quality with 9.8/10 vs TGT's 8.3/10. COST trades at $954.27 while TGT trades at $123.18. Both analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR data across 13 institutional models.
COST scores higher with a 9.8/10 quality rating vs TGT's 8.3/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.
At $954.27, COST trades +71.5% above its Bayesian DCF fair value of $272.35, while TGT at $123.18 trades +45.4% above its estimate of $67.24. COST shows a wider gap between price and intrinsic value.
COST earns a Quality of Company score of 9.8/10 compared to TGT's 8.3/10. This moderate difference suggests one company has an edge in fundamental quality, though both may offer investment merit depending on valuation. The QOC score synthesizes 32 signals spanning profitability margins, revenue growth, free cash flow, capital allocation, and leverage.
COST carries a SAFE value trap risk (6/100) while TGT shows SAFE risk (6/100). Both companies show manageable value trap risk, suggesting their current valuations are not artificially depressed by fundamental deterioration.
Both COST and TGT operate in Discount Stores, which has 8 stocks tracked by CirclFi. Same-industry comparisons provide the most direct insight into relative valuation since both companies face similar regulatory environments, market dynamics, and competitive pressures. Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN), and ensemble methods (CUCE).
11 hidden models compare COST vs TGT differently — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more. Some may disagree with the 2 you see above.
Bloomberg Terminal: ~$2,000/mo · FactSet: ~$1,000/mo · CirclFi: $0.90/day
See All 13 Models — $0.90/dayWe don’t predict prices. We show you what 13 independent mathematical frameworks say a stock is worth — and let you decide.