Aramark vs Darden Restaurants
ARMK and DRI side by side, both in eating and drinking places. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ARMK and DRI compare
Darden Restaurants is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Aramark ($25.1B against $14.8B).
On earnings, Darden Restaurants is cheaper: it trades at 21.5× trailing earnings, against 39.2× for Aramark.
Aramark grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.0% versus 8.1% for Darden Restaurants).
Darden Restaurants keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.8% compared with 1.9% at Aramark.
Both pay dividends: Aramark yields 0.86% and Darden Restaurants 2.8%.
Darden Restaurants scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 12 for Aramark), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ARMK | DRI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.8B | $25.1B |
| Share price | $56.02 | $220.17 |
| Change, 1 year | 42.7% | 20.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 42.7% | 42.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.65 |
| Employees | 278K | 177K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.2× | 21.5× (better) |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 1.9× |
| P/B | 4.4× (better) | 12.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.7× | 12.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 34.1× | 23.8× (better) |
| PEG | 2.22 (better) | 2.36 |
| FCF yield | 2.9% | 4.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $48.71 | $227.71 |
| Margin of safety | −15.0% | 3.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.0% (better) | 8.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.6% | 12.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 7.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 9.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 8.5% | 20.3% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 11.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.9% | 8.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.2% | 7.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 11.8% | 55.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 7.2% | 54.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.81 | 0.47 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.05 | 0.36 (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.28 (better) | 0.30 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.60 (better) | 2.52 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.86% | 2.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 31.9% | 59.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −0.93% | 31.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.32% | 2.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 5.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 98.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.81% | 0.37% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.3M (better) | −$24.1M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 5.9% |
Go deeper
- ARMK stock overview
- ARMK income statement
- ARMK valuation and score
- DRI stock overview
- DRI income statement
- DRI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.