Bloomin' Brands vs Texas Roadhouse
BLMN and TXRH 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 TXRH compare
Texas Roadhouse is the larger company, worth 14 times as much as Bloomin' Brands ($12.2B against $866M).
On earnings, Bloomin' Brands is cheaper: it trades at 12.3× trailing earnings, against 29.2× for Texas Roadhouse.
Texas Roadhouse grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.2% versus 1.1% for Bloomin' Brands).
Texas Roadhouse pays a dividend yielding 1.6%; Bloomin' Brands does not pay one.
Bloomin' Brands scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 10 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 | BLMN | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $866M | $12.2B |
| Share price | $10.12 | $185.99 |
| Change, 1 year | 59.4% | 13.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −46.2% | 107% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.27 | 0.73 |
| Employees | 64K | 101K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.3× (better) | 29.2× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 1.9× |
| P/B | 2.0× (better) | 7.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 2.8× (better) | 16.9× |
| P/FCF | 7.1× (better) | 30.3× |
| PEG | – | 1.90 |
| FCF yield | 14.0% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $22.83 | $150.00 |
| Margin of safety | 55.7% (better) | −24.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.1% | 9.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 19.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −2.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 68.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 70.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 2.6% | 7.7% (better) |
| Net margin | 1.8% | – |
| FCF margin | 3.0% | 6.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 18.4% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 33.2% (better) | 29.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.03 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.13 |
| Current ratio | 0.29 | 0.38 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.99 | 6.13 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 1.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 0.00% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 17.6% | 49.8% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 2.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 99.1% |
| Held by insiders | 6.4% | 0.53% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $63.4K (better) | −$9.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 14.4% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- BLMN stock overview
- BLMN income statement
- BLMN valuation and score
- TXRH stock overview
- TXRH income statement
- TXRH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.