Darden Restaurants vs Restaurant Brands International
DRI 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 DRI and QSR compare
Restaurant Brands International is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Darden Restaurants ($32.9B against $25.1B).
On earnings, Restaurant Brands International is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 21.5× for Darden Restaurants.
Darden Restaurants grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.1% versus 5.5% for Restaurant Brands International).
Both pay dividends: Darden Restaurants yields 2.8% and Restaurant Brands International 3.5%.
Darden Restaurants scores higher on the StockData Score (13 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 | DRI | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $25.1B | $32.9B |
| Share price | $220.17 | $72.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.7% | 9.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 42.5% | 21.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.65 | 0.46 |
| Employees | 177K | 54K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.5× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 3.4× |
| P/B | 12.1× | 8.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.1× (better) | 15.9× |
| P/FCF | 23.8× | 20.8× (better) |
| PEG | 2.36 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.2% | 4.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $227.71 | $77.90 |
| Margin of safety | 3.3% | 7.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.1% (better) | 5.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.9% | 13.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 7.5% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 9.9% | 62.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 16.8% (better) | 8.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.3% | – |
| Operating margin | 11.7% | 27.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.8% | – |
| FCF margin | 7.9% | 16.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 55.1% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 54.7% (better) | 16.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.47 (better) | 3.36 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.36 (better) | 4.17 |
| Current ratio | 0.30 | 0.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.52 (better) | 1.87 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.8% | 3.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 59.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 31.1% (better) | 3.6% |
| Buyback yield | 2.7% (better) | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.5% (better) | 4.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 70.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.37% | 27.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$24.1M (better) | −$55.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.9% | 5.6% |
Go deeper
- DRI stock overview
- DRI income statement
- DRI 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.