Costco vs Walmart (COST vs WMT) 2026: Stock Returns, Risk & Volatility

Q: Which is a better investment: COST or WMT?

Over the past year, WMT looks like the better investment: it had higher total return (WMT +39.8% vs COST +4.4%) and a higher Sharpe ratio (WMT 1.48 vs COST 0.10). On risk, COST was less volatile (COST 18.3% vs WMT 21.7%), WMT had a smaller max drawdown (WMT -11.1% vs COST -19.3%), and COST had less severe losses on the worst 5% of days (Expected Shortfall of COST -2.65% vs WMT -2.66%).

Written by Gale Finance Team

Reviewed by Sid Kalla CFA Charterholder

Quick answer

Which is a better investment: COST or WMT?

Over the past year, WMT outperformed COST. WMT returned +39.8% compared with COST’s +4.4%. WMT had the better risk-adjusted return, with a Sharpe ratio of 1.48 versus COST’s 0.10. COST was less volatile than WMT, but WMT had a smaller max drawdown than COST.

Total Return

COST +4.4%

WMT +39.8%

Sharpe Ratio

COST 0.10

WMT 1.48

Annualized Volatility

COST 18.3%

WMT 21.7%

Max Drawdown

COST -19.3%

WMT -11.1%

Metric winners: Total Return: WMT; Sharpe Ratio: WMT; Annualized Volatility: COST (less volatile); Max Drawdown: WMT (smaller drawdown).

COST Total Return

↑ +4.4%

WMT Total Return

↑ +39.8%

Relative Performance of COST vs WMT (Normalized to 100)

COST WMT

Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison

Trade COST or WMT

Access these assets on trusted platforms.

Hyperliquid

Trade perpetual futures exposure where supportedCOSTWMTTrade on Hyperliquid

Binance

Trade futures exposure on a global exchange where supportedCOSTWMTTrade on Binance

Affiliate disclosure

Key Takeaways

Total Return: COST delivered a +4.4% total return, while WMT returned +39.8% over the same period. WMT outperformed on total returns.
Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): WMT had a higher Sharpe (1.48 vs 0.10), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.
Volatility (Annualized): WMT was more volatile, with 21.7% annualized volatility, versus 18.3% for COST.
Maximum Drawdown: WMT's maximum drawdown was -11.1%, while COST experienced a deeper drawdown of -19.3%.
Tail Risk (VaR & Expected Shortfall): At the 5% level (daily log returns), COST's VaR was -1.78% and its Expected Shortfall (CVaR) was -2.65%; WMT's were -1.75% and -2.66%. VaR is the cutoff; Expected Shortfall is the average move on the worst days.
Skew & Kurtosis: Skew: COST -0.11 vs WMT 0.46. Excess kurtosis: COST 1.02 vs WMT 2.64. Negative skew leans downside; higher excess kurtosis means fatter tails.
Tail Days & Extremes: 2σ tail days (down/up): COST 10/8, WMT 4/9. Worst day: COST -3.89% (2025-06-05) vs WMT -4.49% (2025-08-21). Best day: COST +3.71% (2026-01-08) vs WMT +6.46% (2025-11-20).
Risk ratios: Sortino - COST: 0.14 vs. WMT: 2.39 , Calmar - COST: 0.23 vs. WMT: 3.61 , Sterling - COST: 0.01 vs. WMT: 3.23 , Treynor - COST: 0.14 vs. WMT: 3.10 , Ulcer Index - COST: 9.76% vs. WMT: 4.14%

Investment Comparison

If you invested $10,000 in each asset on April 25, 2025:

COST $10,437.73 +4.4%

WMT $13,979.28 +39.8%

Difference: $3,541.55 (WMT ahead)

Costco vs Walmart Performance Over Time

Metric	COST	WMT
30 Days	4.2%	8.2%
90 Days	3.3%	12.1%
180 Days	9.1%	24.6%
1 Year	4.4%	39.8%

Shorter time frames can show different leaders as market conditions change. Consider your investment horizon when comparing performance.

Costco vs Walmart Correlation

Average Correlation

moderately correlated

0.57

Current (30-day) 0.70

30-day rolling range +0.28 to +0.82

Costco and Walmart are moderately correlated over the past year. With a correlation of 0.57, these assets show moderate co-movement, offering some diversification when held together.

For portfolio construction, this moderate correlation offers some diversification benefit, though the assets still tend to move together during major market moves.

Metric	Value
Current (30-day)	0.70
Average (full period)	0.57
Minimum (30-day rolling)	0.28
Maximum (30-day rolling)	0.82

Correlation measures how closely two assets move together. Values near +1 indicate strong co-movement, near 0 indicates independence, and negative values indicate inverse movement. Current, minimum, and maximum figures are 30-day rolling correlations on shared daily returns.

Drawdown

Maximum Drawdown

COST

-19.3%

WMT

-11.1%

Costco experienced its maximum drawdown of -19.3% from 2025-06-02 to 2025-12-22. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Walmart experienced its maximum drawdown of -11.1% from 2026-02-13 to 2026-03-20. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Smaller drawdowns and faster recoveries indicate lower downside risk and greater resilience during market stress.

Costco vs Walmart Volatility (COST vs WMT)

COST Volatility

18.3%

±1.15% 1-day vol

WMT Volatility

21.7%

±1.37% 1-day vol

1-day volatility (1σ)

COST

±1.15%

WMT

±1.37%

Costco's 18.3% annualized volatility translates to about ±1.15% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Walmart's 21.7% annualized volatility translates to about ±1.37% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

WMT had the wider volatility profile over this window. That means its day-to-day return distribution was broader; COST was calmer, but lower volatility does not by itself mean better returns.

Treat the ± daily figure as a one-standard-deviation estimate from historical returns, not a forecast or expected absolute daily move. For context, 15-18% annualized volatility is roughly ±1% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of COST and WMT

Sharpe Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Return per total volatility

Sharpe gives us excess return per unit of risk. Upside and downside volatility both count as risk.

Higher is better

excess return / total volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sharpe} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_R}

Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. WMT had a higher Sharpe (1.48 vs 0.10), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.

A Sharpe above 1.0 is generally considered good, above 2.0 is excellent. Negative Sharpe means the asset underperformed the risk-free rate. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Sortino Ratio of COST and WMT

Sortino Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Return per downside volatility

Sortino keeps the return-over-risk idea, but only returns below the target rate count as volatility.

Higher is better

excess return / downside volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sortino} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_{\mathrm{down}}}

Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only counts downside deviation (returns below the target return). WMT had better downside-adjusted returns.

A higher Sortino is better. It's useful when upside volatility is common (crypto is the obvious example). Downside deviation: COST 12.8% vs WMT 13.4%. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices, using the daily risk-free rate as the target return, and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Calmar Ratio of COST and WMT

Calmar Ratio: COST vs. WMT

CAGR per worst drawdown

Calmar compares CAGR against the single deepest peak-to-trough loss over the period.

Higher is better

CAGR / max drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Calmar} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR}}{|\mathrm{MaxDD}|}

Calmar ratio compares CAGR to maximum drawdown. Higher Calmar means more return per unit of worst drawdown. WMT posted the higher Calmar ratio.

Calmar is computed on each asset's full 365-day lookback and uses the max drawdown over that same window.

Sterling Ratio of COST and WMT

Sterling Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Return per average drawdown

Sterling smooths the drawdown penalty by using average drawdown events instead of only the worst one.

Higher is better

excess annual return / average deep drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sterling} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR} - R_f}{\overline{D}_{>10\%}}

Sterling ratio measures excess return per unit of average drawdown (typically drawdowns worse than 10%). WMT posted the higher Sterling ratio.

Sterling uses average drawdown events deeper than 10% and subtracts the risk-free rate to report excess return.

Treynor Ratio of COST and WMT

Treynor Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Excess return per market beta

Treynor divides excess annualized return by beta — the sensitivity of the asset to broad-market moves. The slope shown is each asset’s beta vs SPY.

Higher is better

excess return / market beta

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Treynor} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\beta}

Treynor ratio measures excess return per unit of market risk (beta) instead of total volatility. WMT posted the higher Treynor ratio.

Treynor uses beta vs the S&P 500 (SPY) on shared dates and the average 3-month Treasury rate as the risk-free rate.

Ulcer Index of COST and WMT

Ulcer Index: COST vs. WMT

Drawdown pain

Ulcer Index is a risk index, not a return-over-risk ratio. Lower means smaller and shorter drawdowns.

Lower is better

root-mean-square drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{UI} = \sqrt{\mathbb{E}[D_t^2]}

Ulcer Index captures drawdown depth and duration. Lower Ulcer Index means less drawdown pain. WMT had the lower Ulcer Index (less drawdown pain).

Ulcer Index is computed from each asset's drawdown series over the full lookback window.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Costco vs. Walmart

This section looks at the shape of daily returns, not just the average. Tail stats are computed per asset on its own daily series (crypto includes weekends). We use daily log returns $\ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)$ so multi-day moves add cleanly.

Definitions: Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall, skew, kurtosis, and fat tails.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: COST vs. WMT (1-Year)

Actual daily return tails

The bars are real daily log-return observations from the article window. Darker bars are observations at or beyond each asset’s 5% VaR cutoff.

Observed returns

VaR marks the 5th percentile loss cutoff; Expected Shortfall averages the observations beyond that cutoff.

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}=Q_{0.05}(r_t),\quad \mathrm{ES}_{5\%}=\mathbb{E}[r_t\mid r_t\le \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}]

Metric (1-Year)	COST	WMT
5% VaR (daily log return)	-1.78%	-1.75%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-2.65% (worst 13 days)	-2.66% (worst 13 days)
Skew	-0.11	0.46
Excess kurtosis	1.02	2.64
2σ tail days (down / up)	10 / 8	4 / 9
Worst day	-3.89% (2025-06-05)	-4.49% (2025-08-21)
Best day	+3.71% (2026-01-08)	+6.46% (2025-11-20)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Computed on shared dates only (n=249). A “2σ downside move” means a shared-close log return more than 2 standard deviations below that asset’s own mean on this shared-date series. Dates below show simple returns (%) for readability.

Downside co-move map: COST vs. WMT (2σ)

Shared-close daily returns

Dots mark actual downside days: asset-colored dots are one-sided downside moves, and red dots are joint downside days. Grey dots add sampled shared-return context when available. The shaded lower-left zone shows where both COST and WMT crossed their own 2σ downside threshold.

2σ

Show downside tail dates

Dates below are shared-date observations. The “Date” is the period end (close). Tail thresholds are computed on log returns, but the table shows simple returns (%) for readability. Returns are computed from the previous shared close to this one (for example, Friday → Monday includes weekend moves).

Days when both COST and WMT had a big down day (2σ)

Date (interval)	COST	WMT
2025-08-21	-2.50%	-4.49%
2026-03-05	-2.40%	-3.52%

Days when COST had a big down day

Date (interval)	COST	WMT
2025-06-05	-3.89%	-1.40%
2025-08-21	-2.50%	-4.49%
2025-09-10	-2.34%	-1.84%
2025-09-26	-2.90%	+0.11%
2025-10-16	-3.08%	-2.35%
2025-12-04	-2.86%	+0.38%
2025-12-12 → 2025-12-15	-2.70%	+0.08%
2026-02-10	-2.64%	-1.80%
2026-03-05	-2.40%	-3.52%
2026-04-10	-3.25%	-1.83%

Days when WMT had a big down day

Date (interval)	COST	WMT
2025-08-21	-2.50%	-4.49%
2026-02-13 → 2026-02-17	-0.63%	-3.76%
2026-03-05	-2.40%	-3.52%
2026-04-07	-0.52%	-3.39%

Read this as “how ugly the ugly days get”, not as a precise forecast. One-year samples are small, so tail estimates are inherently noisy.

Full Comparison of Costco vs. Walmart (1-Year)

Metric	COST	WMT
Total Return	+4.4%	+39.8%
Annualized Volatility	18.3%	21.7%
Sharpe Ratio	0.10	1.48
Sortino Ratio	0.14	2.39
Calmar Ratio	0.23	3.61
Sterling Ratio	0.01	3.23
Treynor Ratio	0.14	3.10
Ulcer Index	9.76%	4.14%
Max Drawdown	-19.3%	-11.1%
Avg Correlation to S&P 500	0.07	-0.01
5% VaR (daily log return)	-1.78%	-1.75%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-2.65%	-2.66%
Skew	-0.11	0.46
Excess kurtosis	1.02	2.64
2σ tail days (down / up)	10 / 8	4 / 9

Audit this calculation

Formulas, inputs, and conventions used to compute the metrics on this page.

Inputs & conventions

Shared window for pair metrics: 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23 (last shared close).
Rolling correlation sample (shared closes): 220 rolling 30-day values (from 249 shared daily returns).
Annualization (days/year): COST: 252 days/year; WMT: 252 days/year.
Risk-free rate: Uses the 3-month U.S. Treasury yield (FRED: DGS3MO), averaged over each asset’s window:

COST: 4.17% over 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23.

WMT: 4.17% over 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23.
Volatility drag (rule of thumb): Estimated from annualized volatility (simple returns). For the log-return framing, see Log returns.

COST: ≈ -1.7%/yr

WMT: ≈ -2.4%/yr
Data alignment: No forward fill. Correlation and tail co-moves are computed on shared closes only.
For cross-calendar pairs (e.g., crypto vs stocks), weekend/holiday moves roll into the next shared close.
Return conventions: Volatility/Sharpe/Sortino use simple daily returns. Tail-risk uses daily log returns for distribution stats (but tables show simple returns). Log returns.

Formulas

Daily simple return

r_t = \frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}} - 1

Volatility

\sigma_{ann} = \sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}

Volatility drag (approx.)

\text{drag} \approx \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_{ann}^2

Sharpe Ratio

S = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}}

Sortino Ratio

So = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\min(0,\,r_t - r_f/A)^2]}\,\sqrt{A}}

Maximum Drawdown

MDD = \min_t\left(\frac{P_t}{\max_{s \le t} P_s} - 1\right)

Average Correlation

\rho = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(r^A,\,r^B)}{\sigma_A\,\sigma_B}

Log returns

\ell_t = \ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)

Notation

$P_t$: Price on day t.
$r_t$: Simple daily return.
$\ell_t$: Log daily return.
$\bar{r}$: Average daily return.
$\sigma(r_t)$: Standard deviation of daily returns.
$A$: Annualization factor (days/year).
$r_f$: Annual risk-free rate.

Costco vs Walmart: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: COST or WMT?

WMT showed higher volatility at 21.7% annualized, compared to 18.3% for COST Over the past year. Higher volatility means larger price swings in both directions.

Does COST provide diversification when held with WMT?

COST and WMT are moderately correlated over the past year, with an average correlation of 0.57. This offers some diversification benefit, though they still tend to move together during major market moves.

How bad are the worst 5% days for COST vs WMT?

Over the past year, COST's 5% VaR was -1.78% and its 5% Expected Shortfall was -2.65% (worst 13 days). WMT's were -1.75% and -2.66% (worst 13 days).

Do COST and WMT crash together on bad days?

On shared dates (n=249), when WMT has a 2σ down day, COST also does 50.0% (2/4 days). In the other direction, when COST has one, WMT also does 20.0% (2/10 days).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: COST or WMT?

WMT showed better risk-adjusted performance with a Sharpe ratio of 1.48 versus COST's 0.10 Over the past year.

Can COST and WMT be combined in a portfolio?

Yes, though allocation sizing matters. Their moderate correlation offers some diversification benefits. WMT's higher volatility (21.7%) means even small allocations can materially impact overall portfolio risk.

Explore our financial glossary

Which is a better investment: COST or WMT?

Share This Comparison of COST vs WMT

Relative Performance of COST vs WMT (Normalized to 100)

Trade COST or WMT

Key Takeaways

Investment Comparison

Costco vs Walmart Performance Over Time

Costco vs Walmart Correlation

Drawdown

Costco vs Walmart Volatility (COST vs WMT)

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of COST and WMT

Sharpe Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Sortino Ratio of COST and WMT

Sortino Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Calmar Ratio of COST and WMT

Calmar Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Sterling Ratio of COST and WMT

Sterling Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Treynor Ratio of COST and WMT

Treynor Ratio: COST vs. WMT

Ulcer Index of COST and WMT

Ulcer Index: COST vs. WMT

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Costco vs. Walmart

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: COST vs. WMT (1-Year)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Downside co-move map: COST vs. WMT (2σ)

Days when both COST and WMT had a big down day (2σ)

Days when COST had a big down day

Days when WMT had a big down day

Full Comparison of Costco vs. Walmart (1-Year)

Inputs & conventions

Formulas

Costco vs Walmart: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: COST or WMT?

Does COST provide diversification when held with WMT?

How bad are the worst 5% days for COST vs WMT?

Do COST and WMT crash together on bad days?

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: COST or WMT?

Can COST and WMT be combined in a portfolio?