The structural profiles are close, with Costco Wholesale carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Tesco still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is currently leaning toward Tesco, which does not confirm the structural lead. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Costco Wholesale, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (COST: Nasdaq 100, TSCO.L: STOXX 600).
Profitability is the clearest driver, while valuation keeps the result from looking one-way.
This comparison is anchored in long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
Most of the shared profile comes through revenue stability and investment intensity.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in profitability.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Costco Wholesale Corporation looks stronger, but the price setup still looks more supportive for Tesco PLC.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where COST and TSCO.L each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 42-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Tesco, with a forward P/E that is 28 turns lower there.
The main read on profitability is clearer than the broader score gap.
Break down the COST vs TSCO.L comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how COST and TSCO.L each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.