COMPARE · Reviewed August 10, 2026
CCK vs YUMC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CCK scored 75.3, YUMC scored 74.8 — CCK leads.
Compare another set
CCK
Crown Holdings, Inc.
75.3
$120.31 · $13.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.5
CCK leads
YUMC
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
74.8
$48.19 · $16.5B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CCK
stronger →← stronger
YUMC
77
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
75
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
75
74
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
CCK and YUMC split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CCK
YUMC
$1.2bC+
FCF
$940mC+
+10.3%B
Rev
+8.8%B
1.86C+
D/E
0.31A-
17.3xB+
P/E
17.7xB+
0.64A-
PEG
1.19B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
CCK
YUMC
55% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
7% below
~-13%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
+111%
1-yr DCF upside
-7%
+124%
5-yr DCF upside
+7%
+146%
10-yr DCF upside
+31%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CCK
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
YUMC
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
CCKCrown Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Packaging & Containers · market cap $13.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $122.91 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.64 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 14 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $136.57 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 153% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
YUMCYum China Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $16.5b. 17% off the 52-week high of $58.39. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $62.05 (implying +29% upside).
Moat
ROE 18% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
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 CCK and YUMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.5 points in favour of CCK. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueCCK 73.6 · YUMC 65.4CCK +8.2
- QualityCCK 77.0 · YUMC 84.7YUMC +7.7
- GrowthCCK 75.4 · YUMC 75.4level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.