Restaurant Brands International vs Yum Brands
QSR 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 QSR and YUM compare
Yum Brands is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Restaurant Brands International ($42.4B against $32.9B).
On earnings, Restaurant Brands International is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 19.6× for Yum Brands.
Yum Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus 5.5% for Restaurant Brands International).
Both pay dividends: Restaurant Brands International yields 3.5% and Yum Brands 1.9%.
Yum Brands 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 | QSR | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $32.9B | $42.4B |
| Share price | $72.41 | $155.40 |
| Change, 1 year | 9.7% | 11.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 21.8% | 22.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.46 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 54K | 49K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.2× (better) | 19.6× |
| P/S | 3.4× (better) | 4.9× |
| P/B | 8.4× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.9× (better) | 19.3× |
| P/FCF | 20.8× (better) | 25.3× |
| PEG | – | 2.93 |
| FCF yield | 4.8% (better) | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $77.90 | $160.79 |
| Margin of safety | 7.1% (better) | 3.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% | 10.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.7% (better) | 7.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 54.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 62.5% (better) | 56.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.0% | 13.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 68.1% |
| Operating margin | 27.0% | 31.0% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 25.4% |
| FCF margin | 16.2% | 19.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 16.2% | 48.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.36 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.17 (better) | 4.91 |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.59 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.87 | 2.30 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.5% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 36.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.6% | 8.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% | 2.1% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.9% (better) | 4.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 70.9% | 89.5% |
| Held by insiders | 27.7% | 0.15% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$55.7M | −$13.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.6% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- QSR stock overview
- QSR income statement
- QSR 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.