Brinker International vs Yum Brands
EAT 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 EAT and YUM compare
Yum Brands is the larger company, worth 4.8 times as much as Brinker International ($42.4B against $8.9B).
On earnings, Brinker International is cheaper: it trades at 19.5× trailing earnings, against 19.6× for Yum Brands.
Yum Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus 7.9% for Brinker International).
Yum Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.4% compared with 8.4% at Brinker International.
Yum Brands pays a dividend yielding 1.9%; Brinker International does not pay one.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | EAT | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.9B | $42.4B |
| Share price | $212.18 | $155.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 84.5% | 11.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 375% | 22.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.21 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 85K | 49K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 13 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.5× (better) | 19.6× |
| P/S | 1.5× (better) | 4.9× |
| P/B | 20.0× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.8× (better) | 19.3× |
| P/FCF | 15.9× (better) | 25.3× |
| PEG | 0.29 (better) | 2.93 |
| FCF yield | 6.3% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $207.26 | $160.79 |
| Margin of safety | −2.4% | 3.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.9% | 10.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.7% (better) | 7.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 27.1% | 54.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 30.6% | 56.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 30.9% (better) | 13.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 74.4% (better) | 68.1% |
| Operating margin | 10.7% | 31.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.4% | 25.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.6% | 19.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 120% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 62.2% (better) | 48.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.00 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.54 (better) | 4.91 |
| Interest coverage | 15.3× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.45 | 0.59 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.21 (better) | 2.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 36.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.6% |
| Buyback yield | 5.0% (better) | 2.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 4.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 113% | 89.5% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 0.15% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$59.2M | −$13.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 12.6% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- EAT stock overview
- EAT income statement
- EAT 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.