COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CMG vs EAT
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CMG scored 65.9, EAT scored 59.2 — CMG leads.
Compare another set
CMG
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
65.9
$36.90 · $46.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.7
CMG leads
EAT
Brinker International, Inc.
59.2
$246.06 · $10.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestEAT22.6x
- Fastest growthEAT+7.9%
- Strongest balance sheetCMG2.46
- Highest qualityCMG83 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueEAT-3%
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)
CMG
stronger →← stronger
EAT
83
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
75
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
46
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
35
CMG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CMG
EAT
$1.6bC+
FCF
$558mC+
+7.3%B
Rev
+7.9%B
2.46C
D/E
3.64C
34.2xC
P/E
22.6xB
1.87C+
PEG
1.70C+
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
CMG
EAT
35% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% below
~19%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~14%/yr
-40%
1-yr DCF upside
-21%
-26%
5-yr DCF upside
+3%
0%
10-yr DCF upside
+51%
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
CMG
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
EAT
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
CMGChipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $46.7b. 15% off the 52-week high of $43.59. 32 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $43.80 (implying +19% upside).
Moat
ROE 65% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 111% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
D/E 2.46 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 34x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
EATBrinker International, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $10.6b. 3% off the 52-week high of $253.71. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $263.75 (implying +7% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 114% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
D/E 3.64 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
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 CMG and EAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.7 points in favor of CMG. The widest single difference is Value, where CMG leads by 11.1 points.
- ValueCMG 46.0 · EAT 34.9CMG +11.1
- QualityCMG 82.8 · EAT 77.9CMG +4.9
- GrowthCMG 75.1 · EAT 76.5level
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.