Restaurant Brands International vs Texas Roadhouse
QSR 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 QSR and TXRH compare
Restaurant Brands International is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as Texas Roadhouse ($34.0B against $12.2B).
On earnings, Restaurant Brands International is cheaper: it trades at 17.9× trailing earnings, against 29.2× for Texas Roadhouse.
Texas Roadhouse grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.2% versus 5.5% for Restaurant Brands International).
Both pay dividends: Restaurant Brands International yields 3.4% and Texas Roadhouse 1.6%.
Texas Roadhouse scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | QSR | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $34.0B | $12.2B |
| Share price | $75.41 | $185.98 |
| Change, 1 year | 9.1% | 11.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 31.8% | 107% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.44 | 0.73 |
| Employees | 54K | 101K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 1 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.9× (better) | 29.2× |
| P/S | 3.5× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | 8.6× | 7.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.3× (better) | 16.9× |
| P/FCF | 21.5× (better) | 30.3× |
| PEG | – | 1.90 |
| FCF yield | 4.6% (better) | 3.3% |
| Fair value | $73.98 | $149.52 |
| Margin of safety | −1.9% (better) | −24.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% | 9.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 13.7% | 19.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 62.5% (better) | −2.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.0% | 68.4% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 27.0% (better) | 7.7% |
| FCF margin | 16.2% (better) | 6.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 16.2% | 29.8% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.36 | 0.03 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.17 (better) | −0.13 |
| Current ratio | 0.96 (better) | 0.38 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.90 | 6.13 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.4% (better) | 1.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 13 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.6% | 49.8% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% (better) | 1.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.7% (better) | 2.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 71.4% | 99.1% |
| Held by insiders | 27.8% | 0.53% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$52.2M | −$10.1M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.9% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- QSR stock overview
- QSR income statement
- QSR 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.