Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BKNG scored 68.4, YUMC scored 77.1 — YUMC leads.
Compare another set
BKNG
Booking Holdings Inc.
Travel Services · Quality-Growth
68.4
$160.34 · $120.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.7
YUMC leads
YUMC
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
77.1
$42.92 · $14.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestYUMC15.3x
Fastest growthBKNG+12.9%
Highest qualityBKNG96 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBKNG-32%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BKNG
stronger →← stronger
YUMC
96
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
67
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
74
YUMC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BKNG
YUMC
$9.5bB+
FCF
$940mC+
+12.9%B+
Rev
+8.8%B
Negative equity
D/E
0.38A-
17.8xB
P/E
15.3xB+
0.88B+
PEG
0.93B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
BKNG
YUMC
32% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
7% below
~2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
+22%
1-yr DCF upside
+1%
+46%
5-yr DCF upside
+8%
+90%
10-yr DCF upside
+18%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BKNG
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
YUMC
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
BKNGBooking Holdings Inc.
Travel Services · $160.34 · beta 1.13
Why now
Travel Services · market cap $120.5b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $220.81 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.88 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 35 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $235.26 (implying +47% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 177% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $120.5b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
YUMCYum China Holdings, Inc.
Restaurants · $42.92 · beta 0.06
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $14.5b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $58.39 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $61.91 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
YUMC leads BKNG by 7.8 points (78.2 to 70.4), its sharpest advantage coming in P/E (grade B+). A contrarian could still prefer BKNG, which trades about 33% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. All screen as value-type names but sit in different sectors (Travel Services versus Restaurants), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where BKNG and YUMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.7 points in favor of YUMC. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthBKNG 50.0 · YUMC 73.0YUMC +23.0
QualityBKNG 96.1 · YUMC 84.8BKNG +11.3
ValueBKNG 66.5 · YUMC 74.0YUMC +7.5
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is YUMC or BKNG the better stock?
YUMC scores higher: YUMC 77.1, BKNG 68.4 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do YUMC and BKNG differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where YUMC leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are YUMC and BKNG scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.