Aramark vs Restaurant Brands International
ARMK and QSR 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 QSR compare
Restaurant Brands International is the larger company, worth 2.2 times as much as Aramark ($32.9B against $14.8B).
On earnings, Restaurant Brands International is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 39.2× for Aramark.
Aramark grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.0% versus 5.5% for Restaurant Brands International).
Both pay dividends: Aramark yields 0.86% and Restaurant Brands International 3.5%.
Aramark scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 9 for Restaurant Brands International), 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 | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.8B | $32.9B |
| Share price | $56.02 | $72.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 42.7% | 9.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 42.7% | 21.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.46 |
| Employees | 278K | 54K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.2× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 3.4× |
| P/B | 4.4× (better) | 8.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.7× (better) | 15.9× |
| P/FCF | 34.1× | 20.8× (better) |
| PEG | 2.22 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.9% | 4.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $48.71 | $77.90 |
| Margin of safety | −15.0% | 7.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.0% (better) | 5.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.6% | 13.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 5.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 62.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 8.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 8.5% | – |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 27.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.9% | – |
| FCF margin | 2.2% | 16.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 11.8% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 7.2% | 16.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.81 (better) | 3.36 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.05 (better) | 4.17 |
| Current ratio | 1.28 (better) | 0.96 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.60 (better) | 1.87 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.86% | 3.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 31.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −0.93% | 3.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.32% | 1.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 70.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.81% | 27.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.3M (better) | −$55.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 5.6% |
Go deeper
- ARMK stock overview
- ARMK income statement
- ARMK valuation and score
- QSR stock overview
- QSR income statement
- QSR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.