Papa Johns International vs Red Robin Gourmet Burgers
PZZA and RRGB 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 PZZA and RRGB compare
Papa Johns International is the larger company, worth 3.5 times as much as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers ($608M against $172M).
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (−3.7% versus −5.6% for Papa Johns International).
Papa Johns International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.4% compared with −2.5% at Red Robin Gourmet Burgers.
Papa Johns International pays a dividend yielding 7.5%; Red Robin Gourmet Burgers does not pay one.
Papa Johns International scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 4 for Red Robin Gourmet Burgers), 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 | PZZA | RRGB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $608M | $172M |
| Share price | $18.45 | $9.11 |
| Change, 1 year | −64.8% | 69.3% |
| Change, 5 years | −86.0% | −59.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 2.05 |
| Employees | 9,400 | 19K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.4× | – |
| P/S | 0.3× | 0.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.5× | 7.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 17.7× | – |
| FCF yield | 5.6% (better) | −1.0% |
| Fair value | $33.82 | – |
| Margin of safety | 45.4% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −5.6% | −3.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 6.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −63.4% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −65.2% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.7% | – |
| Operating margin | 4.3% (better) | −0.37% |
| Net margin | 1.4% (better) | −2.5% |
| FCF margin | 1.7% (better) | −0.15% |
| Return on invested capital | 21.2% (better) | −8.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.96 | 3.14 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | −0.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.83 (better) | 0.71 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.35 (better) | 1.80 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 7.5% | – |
| Payout ratio | 223% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 7.5% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 114% | 51.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 34.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$68.0K |
| Short interest, % of float | 20.7% | 14.4% |
Go deeper
- PZZA stock overview
- PZZA income statement
- PZZA valuation and score
- RRGB stock overview
- RRGB income statement
- RRGB valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.