Bloomin' Brands vs Brinker International
BLMN and EAT 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 BLMN and EAT compare
Brinker International is the larger company, worth 9.8 times as much as Bloomin' Brands ($8.9B against $905M).
On earnings, Brinker International is cheaper: it trades at 19.5× trailing earnings, against 34.1× for Bloomin' Brands.
Brinker International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.9% versus 1.2% for Bloomin' Brands).
Brinker International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.4% compared with 0.70% at Bloomin' Brands.
Brinker International scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 10 for Bloomin' Brands), 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 | BLMN | EAT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $905M | $8.9B |
| Share price | $10.57 | $212.18 |
| Change, 1 year | 42.8% | 84.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −52.1% | 375% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.28 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 64K | 85K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 34.1× | 19.5× (better) |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 2.1× (better) | 20.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 3.7× (better) | 14.8× |
| P/FCF | 5.8× (better) | 15.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.29 |
| FCF yield | 17.1% (better) | 6.3% |
| Fair value | $16.90 | $207.26 |
| Margin of safety | 37.5% (better) | −2.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.2% | 7.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 11.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 27.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 30.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 30.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 70.1% | 74.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 1.2% | 10.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.70% | 8.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.9% | 9.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 6.7% | 120% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.4% | 62.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 1.00 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.54 |
| Interest coverage | – | 15.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.25 | 0.45 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.92 | 5.21 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | – |
| Payout ratio | 46.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 17.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 5.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 5.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 6.4% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $1.0M (better) | −$59.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.2% | 12.6% |
Go deeper
- BLMN stock overview
- BLMN income statement
- BLMN valuation and score
- EAT stock overview
- EAT income statement
- EAT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.