Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PSMT scored 50.8, COST scored 47.7 — PSMT leads.
Compare another set
PSMT
PriceSmart, Inc.
Discount Stores · Quality-Growth
50.8
$168.88 · $5.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.1
PSMT leads
COST
Costco Wholesale Corporation
Discount Stores · Quality-Growth
47.7
$946.92 · $419.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPSMT32.5x
Fastest growthPSMT+10.2%
Strongest balance sheetPSMT0.24
Highest qualityCOST79 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
PSMT
stronger →← stronger
COST
64
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
79
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
69
26
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
20
PSMT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PSMT
COST
$74mC-
FCF
$8.8bB+
+10.2%B
Rev
+8.2%B
0.24A-
D/E
0.28A-
32.5xC
P/E
45.6xC
1.83C+
PEG
4.77D
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
PSMT
COST
229% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
153% above
~38%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~31%/yr
-72%
1-yr DCF upside
-63%
-70%
5-yr DCF upside
-60%
-66%
10-yr DCF upside
-56%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
PSMT
No notable signals flagged.
COST
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
PSMTPriceSmart, Inc.
Discount Stores · $168.88 · beta 0.74
Why now
Discount Stores · market cap $5.2b. 15% off the 52-week high of $199.84. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 3 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $166.00 (implying -2% upside).
Moat
ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Trailing P/E 32x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 2.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
COSTCostco Wholesale Corporation
Discount Stores · $946.92 · beta 0.87
Why now
Discount Stores · market cap $419.6b. 14% off the 52-week high of $1096.50. 35 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,058 (implying +12% upside).
Moat
ROE 28% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 95% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $419.6b market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Trailing P/E 46x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 3.0% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where PSMT and COST diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.1 points in favor of PSMT. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityPSMT 63.6 · COST 79.2COST +15.6
GrowthPSMT 78.5 · COST 68.7PSMT +9.8
ValuePSMT 26.3 · COST 19.9PSMT +6.4
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is PSMT or COST the better stock?
PSMT scores higher: PSMT 50.8, COST 47.7 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do PSMT and COST differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where COST leads by 16 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are PSMT and COST scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.