Yum Brands vs Yum China
YUM 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 YUM and YUMC compare
Yum Brands is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Yum China ($42.4B against $15.7B).
On earnings, Yum China is cheaper: it trades at 16.8× trailing earnings, against 19.6× for Yum Brands.
Yum Brands grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.3% versus 8.8% for Yum China).
Yum Brands keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.4% compared with 7.8% at Yum China.
Both pay dividends: Yum Brands yields 1.9% and Yum China 1.9%.
Yum China scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 13 for Yum Brands), 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 | YUM | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $42.4B | $15.7B |
| Share price | $155.40 | $45.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 11.6% | 4.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 22.7% | −19.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.52 | 0.46 |
| Employees | 49K | 290K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.6× | 16.8× (better) |
| P/S | 4.9× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | – | 2.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 19.3× | 8.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 25.3× | 16.7× (better) |
| PEG | 2.93 | 0.49 (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.0% | 6.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $160.79 | $62.17 |
| Margin of safety | 3.4% | 26.4% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.3% (better) | 8.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.8% (better) | 7.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 54.8% (better) | 6.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 56.9% (better) | 12.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.6% (better) | 5.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 68.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 31.0% (better) | 11.1% |
| Net margin | 25.4% (better) | 7.8% |
| FCF margin | 19.3% (better) | 7.6% |
| Return on equity | – | 17.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 48.3% (better) | 26.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.01 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.91 (better) | −0.71 |
| Current ratio | 0.59 | 0.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.30 | 3.73 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | 36.4% | 38.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.6% | 32.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.1% | 8.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.0% | 10.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.5% | 68.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.15% | 3.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$13.2M | −$10.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.6% | 1.8% |
Go deeper
- YUM stock overview
- YUM income statement
- YUM 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.