Bloomin' Brands vs Restaurant Brands International
BLMN and QSR 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 BLMN and QSR compare
Restaurant Brands International is the larger company, worth 38 times as much as Bloomin' Brands ($34.0B against $888M).
On earnings, Bloomin' Brands is cheaper: it trades at 12.6× trailing earnings, against 17.9× for Restaurant Brands International.
Restaurant Brands International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.5% versus 1.1% for Bloomin' Brands).
Restaurant Brands International pays a dividend yielding 3.4%; Bloomin' Brands does not pay one.
Bloomin' Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 8 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 | BLMN | QSR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $888M | $34.0B |
| Share price | $10.37 | $75.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 59.8% | 9.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −44.9% | 31.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.27 | 0.44 |
| Employees | 64K | 54K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.6× (better) | 17.9× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 2.1× (better) | 8.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 2.8× (better) | 16.3× |
| P/FCF | 7.3× (better) | 21.5× |
| FCF yield | 13.7% (better) | 4.6% |
| Fair value | $22.65 | $73.98 |
| Margin of safety | 54.2% (better) | −1.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.1% | 5.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 13.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 62.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 8.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 70.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 2.6% | 27.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.8% | – |
| FCF margin | 3.0% | 16.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 18.4% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 33.2% (better) | 16.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 3.36 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 4.17 |
| Current ratio | 0.29 | 0.96 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.00 | 1.90 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 3.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 0.00% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 17.6% (better) | 3.6% |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 71.4% |
| Held by insiders | 6.4% | 27.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$145K (better) | −$52.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.4% | 4.9% |
Go deeper
- BLMN stock overview
- BLMN income statement
- BLMN valuation and score
- QSR stock overview
- QSR income statement
- QSR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.