Aramark vs Yum Brands
ARMK and YUM 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 YUM compare
Yum Brands is the larger company, worth 2.9 times as much as Aramark ($42.4B against $14.8B).
On earnings, Yum Brands is cheaper: it trades at 19.6× trailing earnings, against 39.2× for Aramark.
Aramark grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.0% versus 10.3% for Yum Brands).
Yum Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.4% compared with 1.9% at Aramark.
Both pay dividends: Aramark yields 0.86% and Yum Brands 1.9%.
Yum Brands 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 | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.8B | $42.4B |
| Share price | $56.02 | $155.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 42.7% | 11.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 42.7% | 22.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 278K | 49K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.2× | 19.6× (better) |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 4.9× |
| P/B | 4.4× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.7× (better) | 19.3× |
| P/FCF | 34.1× | 25.3× (better) |
| PEG | 2.22 (better) | 2.93 |
| FCF yield | 2.9% | 4.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $48.71 | $160.79 |
| Margin of safety | −15.0% | 3.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.0% (better) | 10.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.6% | 7.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 54.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.9% | 56.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 13.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 8.5% | 68.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 31.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.9% | 25.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.2% | 19.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 11.8% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 7.2% | 48.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.81 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.05 (better) | 4.91 |
| Current ratio | 1.28 (better) | 0.59 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.60 (better) | 2.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.86% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 31.9% | 36.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −0.93% | 8.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.32% | 2.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 4.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 89.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.81% | 0.15% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.3M (better) | −$13.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- ARMK stock overview
- ARMK income statement
- ARMK valuation and score
- YUM stock overview
- YUM income statement
- YUM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.