Restaurant Brands International vs Yum China
QSR and YUMC 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 YUMC compare
Restaurant Brands International is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Yum China ($32.9B against $15.7B).
On earnings, Yum China is cheaper: it trades at 16.8× trailing earnings, against 17.2× for Restaurant Brands International.
Yum China grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.8% versus 5.5% for Restaurant Brands International).
Both pay dividends: Restaurant Brands International yields 3.5% and Yum China 1.9%.
Yum China scores higher on the StockData Score (20 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 | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $32.9B | $15.7B |
| Share price | $72.41 | $45.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 9.7% | 4.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 21.8% | −19.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.46 | 0.46 |
| Employees | 54K | 290K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.2× | 16.8× (better) |
| P/S | 3.4× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 8.4× | 2.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.9× | 8.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 20.8× | 16.7× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.49 |
| FCF yield | 4.8% | 6.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $77.90 | $62.17 |
| Margin of safety | 7.1% | 26.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% | 8.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.7% (better) | 7.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 6.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 62.5% (better) | 12.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.0% (better) | 5.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 27.0% (better) | 11.1% |
| Net margin | – | 7.8% |
| FCF margin | 16.2% (better) | 7.6% |
| Return on equity | – | 17.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 16.2% | 26.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.36 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.17 (better) | −0.71 |
| Current ratio | 0.96 | 0.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.87 | 3.73 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.5% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 38.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.6% | 32.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% | 8.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.9% | 10.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 70.9% | 68.0% |
| Held by insiders | 27.7% | 3.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$55.7M | −$10.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.6% | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- QSR stock overview
- QSR income statement
- QSR valuation and score
- YUMC stock overview
- YUMC income statement
- YUMC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.