Papa Johns International vs Yum Brands
PZZA 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 PZZA and YUM compare
Yum Brands is the larger company, worth 70 times as much as Papa Johns International ($42.4B against $608M).
On earnings, Yum Brands is cheaper: it trades at 19.6× trailing earnings, against 23.4× for Papa Johns International.
Yum Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus −5.6% for Papa Johns International).
Yum Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.4% compared with 1.4% at Papa Johns International.
Both pay dividends: Papa Johns International yields 7.5% and Yum Brands 1.9%.
Yum Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 12 for Papa Johns 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 | PZZA | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $608M | $42.4B |
| Share price | $18.45 | $155.40 |
| Change, 1 year | −64.8% | 11.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −86.0% | 22.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.03 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 9,400 | 49K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.4× | 19.6× (better) |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 4.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.5× (better) | 19.3× |
| P/FCF | 17.7× (better) | 25.3× |
| PEG | – | 2.93 |
| FCF yield | 5.6% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $33.82 | $160.79 |
| Margin of safety | 45.4% (better) | 3.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −5.6% | 10.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.5% | 7.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −63.4% | 54.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −65.2% | 56.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.8% | 13.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 28.7% | 68.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | 4.3% | 31.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.4% | 25.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.7% | 19.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 21.2% | 48.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.96 (better) | 4.91 |
| Current ratio | 0.83 (better) | 0.59 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.35 (better) | 2.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 7.5% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | 223% | 36.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% (better) | 8.6% |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 7.5% (better) | 4.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 114% | 89.5% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 0.15% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$13.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 20.7% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- PZZA stock overview
- PZZA income statement
- PZZA 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.