The structural profiles are close, with Walmart carrying a narrow edge on stability. Target still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Target carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Walmart's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Walmart, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest separation starts in stability, with growth adding a second layer of support.
Both operate in: Discount Stores
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. TGT and WMT share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Target and Walmart each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Walmart Inc. occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Target Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where TGT and WMT each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Target, with a forward P/E that is 18 turns lower there.
Stability points more clearly to Walmart Inc., but valuation and current pricing keep the broader result mixed.
Break down the TGT vs WMT comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how TGT and WMT 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.