WAG had 1.02B in net income and 1.47B. CVS had 0.717B in net income.
CVS had 30% less earnings.
If all the numbers are correct, CVS is, in fact, peforming better on a per employee basis (as of the most recent fiscal year) and about the same on a per square foot basis (higher sales/sq ft, lower earnings/sq ft). Of course, WAG has approximately half of its stores less than 5 years old, which means that some of them are not yet at full efficiency. It will be interesting to see how these numbers compare when the WAG 10-K for FY 2003 comes out later this month and the CVS 10-K comes out next March.
While we're waiting for the WAG 10-K, I re-calculated the numbers using 141,000 employees for WAG (since I was also using last year's sales and earnings figures for WAG). The per employee and per square foot comparisons are as follows:
We see that CVS is ahead of WAG in sales efficiency, trails in income efficiency, and serves approximately the same number of customers per employee and per square foot. I will update the WAG numbers when the 2003 10-K comes out later this mohth.