Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CZR scored 36.9, YUMC scored 77.1 — YUMC leads.
Compare another set
CZR
Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
Resorts & Casinos · Quality-Growth
36.9
$29.50 · $6.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
40.2
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
Fastest growthYUMC+8.8%
Strongest balance sheetYUMC0.38
Highest qualityYUMC85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCZR-30%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CZR
stronger →← stronger
YUMC
46
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
32
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
34
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
74
YUMC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CZR
YUMC
$606mC+
FCF
$940mC+
+2.1%C
Rev
+8.8%B
7.30D
D/E
0.38A-
0.5xA-
P/S
—
4.51D
PEG
0.93B+
—
P/E
15.3xB+
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
CZR
YUMC
30% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
7% below
~6%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
+12%
1-yr DCF upside
+1%
+44%
5-yr DCF upside
+8%
+102%
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
CZR
Why this score
Buying back stock
YUMC
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
CZRCaesars Entertainment, Inc.
Resorts & Casinos · $29.50 · beta 1.85
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $6.0b. 4% off the 52-week high of $30.88. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $31.27 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
D/E 7.30 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Currently unprofitable (margin -4.0%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Beta 1.85 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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
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 CZR and YUMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 40.2 points in favor of YUMC. The widest single difference is Growth, where YUMC leads by 40.8 points.
GrowthCZR 32.2 · YUMC 73.0YUMC +40.8
ValueCZR 33.7 · YUMC 74.0YUMC +40.3
QualityCZR 46.2 · YUMC 84.8YUMC +38.6
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 CZR the better stock?
YUMC scores higher: YUMC 77.1, CZR 36.9 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 CZR differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where YUMC leads by 41 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. YUMC leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are YUMC and CZR 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.