Texas Roadhouse vs Yum China
TXRH 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 TXRH and YUMC compare
Yum China is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Texas Roadhouse ($15.7B against $12.0B).
On earnings, Yum China is cheaper: it trades at 16.8× trailing earnings, against 29.2× for Texas Roadhouse.
Texas Roadhouse grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.9% versus 8.8% for Yum China).
Both pay dividends: Texas Roadhouse yields 1.6% and Yum China 1.9%.
Yum China scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 11 for Texas Roadhouse), 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 | TXRH | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.0B | $15.7B |
| Share price | $182.52 | $45.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 6.8% | 4.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 90.6% | −19.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 0.46 |
| Employees | 101K | 290K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 29.2× | 16.8× (better) |
| P/S | 1.9× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 7.7× | 2.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.8× | 8.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 29.5× | 16.7× (better) |
| PEG | 1.90 | 0.49 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.4% | 6.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $153.81 | $62.17 |
| Margin of safety | −18.7% | 26.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.9% (better) | 8.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 19.6% (better) | 7.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 6.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −4.6% | 12.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 68.4% (better) | 5.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 7.7% | 11.1% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 7.8% |
| FCF margin | 6.5% | 7.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 17.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 31.2% (better) | 26.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.03 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.22 | −0.71 |
| Current ratio | 0.46 | 0.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 6.02 (better) | 3.73 |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 38.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 49.8% (better) | 32.0% |
| Buyback yield | 1.4% | 8.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.0% | 10.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.1% | 68.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.53% | 3.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.9M (better) | −$10.8M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- TXRH stock overview
- TXRH income statement
- TXRH 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.