Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EAT scored 67.4, MLCO scored 64.2 — EAT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. EAT's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but MLCO'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.
EAT
Brinker International, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
67.4
$193.87 · $8.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.2
EAT leads
MLCO
Melco Resorts & Entertainment Limited
Resorts & Casinos · Quality-Growth
64.2
$4.23 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMLCO7.2x
Fastest growthMLCO+11.3%
Highest qualityEAT81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueMLCO-89%
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)
EAT
stronger →← stronger
MLCO
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
89
EAT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EAT
MLCO
$558mC+
FCF
$809mC+
+7.9%B
Rev
+11.3%B
3.96D
D/E
Negative equity
17.8xB
P/E
7.2xA
1.70C+
PEG
0.31A
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
EAT
MLCO
3% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
89% below
~8%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
-10%
1-yr DCF upside
+700%
-3%
5-yr DCF upside
+782%
+8%
10-yr DCF upside
+913%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EAT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
MLCO
Why this score
Buying back stock
Cyclical growth
The companies
EATBrinker International, Inc.
Restaurants · $193.87 · beta 1.26
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $8.1b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $254.99 — deep drawdown territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $262.59 (implying +35% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 114% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 3.96 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
MLCOMelco Resorts & Entertainment Limited
Resorts & Casinos · $4.23 · beta 0.48
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $1.6b. Down 56% from 52-week high of $9.53 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.31 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $7.06 (implying +67% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Down 56% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 3.6% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 EAT and MLCO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.2 points in favor of EAT. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueEAT 51.7 · MLCO 88.8MLCO +37.1
GrowthEAT 73.4 · MLCO 50.0EAT +23.4
QualityEAT 80.8 · MLCO 59.6EAT +21.2
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 EAT or MLCO the better stock?
EAT scores higher: EAT 67.4, MLCO 64.2 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 EAT and MLCO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where MLCO leads by 37 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 EAT and MLCO 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.