COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
DPZ vs YUMC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DPZ scored 65.4, YUMC scored 74.5 — YUMC leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. YUMC's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but DPZ's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
DPZ
Domino's Pizza Inc
65.4
$341.85 · $11.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.1
YUMC leads
YUMC
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
74.5
$49.52 · $16.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestYUMC18.1x
- Fastest growthYUMC+8.8%
- Highest qualityYUMC84 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueDPZ-5%
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)
DPZ
stronger →← stronger
YUMC
71
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
63
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
75
63
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
YUMC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DPZ
YUMC
$672mC+
FCF
$940mC+
+5.0%C+
Rev
+8.8%B
—
D/E
0.38A-
19.4xB
P/E
18.1xB
1.68C+
PEG
1.19B+
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
DPZ
YUMC
5% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
4% below
~5%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
-3%
1-yr DCF upside
-9%
+6%
5-yr DCF upside
+4%
+20%
10-yr DCF upside
+28%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DPZ
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
YUMC
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
DPZDomino's Pizza Inc
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $11.3b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $469.00 — deep drawdown territory. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $380.29 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 12% 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 112% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
ROE -15% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
YUMCYum China Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $16.9b. 15% 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 +25% 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 DPZ and YUMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.1 points in favor of YUMC. The widest single difference is Quality, where YUMC leads by 13.2 points.
- QualityDPZ 70.8 · YUMC 84.0YUMC +13.2
- GrowthDPZ 62.7 · YUMC 75.4YUMC +12.7
- ValueDPZ 62.9 · YUMC 65.3level
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.