Chipotle Mexican Grill vs Brinker International
CMG 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 CMG and EAT compare
Chipotle Mexican Grill is the larger company, worth 4.6 times as much as Brinker International ($40.4B against $8.9B).
On earnings, Brinker International is cheaper: it trades at 19.5× trailing earnings, against 29.3× for Chipotle Mexican Grill.
Brinker International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.9% versus 7.3% for Chipotle Mexican Grill).
Chipotle Mexican Grill keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.4% compared with 8.4% at Brinker International.
Chipotle Mexican Grill scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 for Brinker 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 | CMG | EAT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $40.4B | $8.9B |
| Share price | $31.89 | $212.18 |
| Change, 1 year | −19.8% | 84.5% |
| Change, 5 years | −11.1% | 375% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 1.21 |
| Employees | 130K | 85K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 29.3× | 19.5× (better) |
| P/S | 3.2× | 1.5× (better) |
| P/B | 18.3× (better) | 20.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 18.0× | 14.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 25.7× | 15.9× (better) |
| PEG | 1.38 | 0.29 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.9% | 6.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $43.65 | $207.26 |
| Margin of safety | 26.9% (better) | −2.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.3% | 7.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.8% (better) | 11.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −7.9% | 27.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −2.7% | 30.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 35.4% (better) | 30.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 74.4% |
| Operating margin | 14.7% (better) | 10.7% |
| Net margin | 11.4% (better) | 8.4% |
| FCF margin | 12.6% (better) | 9.6% |
| Return on equity | 49.6% | 120% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 79.6% (better) | 62.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 1.00 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.54 |
| Interest coverage | – | 15.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.72 (better) | 0.45 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.65 (better) | 5.21 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 6.9% (better) | 5.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.9% (better) | 5.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 90.8% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 0.70% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.2M (better) | −$59.2M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 12.6% |
Go deeper
- CMG stock overview
- CMG income statement
- CMG 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.