WMT vs COST: Risk Profile Comparison
How do WMT and COST compare in terms of risk? We ran 5,000 simulations for each stock using real historical price data to map out the range of possible outcomes over the next 12 months.
Based on historical patterns, WMT has a 16% loss probability over 12 months, while COST sits at 9%. Historically, COST has shown lower downside risk.
On the return side, COST has a higher median simulated return (+30.8%) compared to WMT (+24.4%). Lower risk doesn't always correlate with lower returns.
Want to Track Both in Your Portfolio?
If you own WMT, COST, or both, YieldMirror can connect to your brokerage account and monitor your entire portfolio's risk in real-time. Get alerts when things change — drawdowns, concentration risk, volatility spikes.
It's like having a risk manager watching your portfolio 24/7. Start your free 7-day trial →
Important Note
This is a simulation based on historical data, not a prediction. Past performance doesn't guarantee future results. Always do your own research.