Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EAT scored 67.4, RCL scored 53.7 — EAT leads.
Compare another set
EAT
Brinker International, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
67.4
$193.87 · $8.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
13.7
EAT leads
RCL
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Travel Services · Quality-Growth
53.7
$282.26 · $75.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthRCL+8.7%
Strongest balance sheetRCL2.25
Highest qualityEAT81 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
EAT
stronger →← stronger
RCL
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
75
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
42
EAT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EAT
RCL
$558mC+
FCF
-$416mF
+7.9%B
Rev
+8.7%B
3.96D
D/E
2.25C
17.8xB
P/E
—
1.70C+
PEG
1.14B+
—
P/S
4.0xD
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
RCL
3% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
—
~8%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
—
-10%
1-yr DCF upside
—
-3%
5-yr DCF upside
—
+8%
10-yr DCF upside
—
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
RCL
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
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.
RCLRoyal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Travel Services · $282.26 · beta 1.82
Why now
Travel Services · market cap $75.5b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $356.39 — deep drawdown territory. 27 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $351.26 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
Net margin 24% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 43% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $75.5b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 2.25 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Free cash flow is negative (-$416m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Beta 1.82 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 RCL diverge
On the headline score the gap is 13.7 points in favor of EAT. The widest single difference is Growth, where EAT leads by 23.4 points.
GrowthEAT 73.4 · RCL 50.0EAT +23.4
ValueEAT 51.7 · RCL 41.6EAT +10.1
QualityEAT 80.8 · RCL 74.5EAT +6.3
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 RCL the better stock?
EAT scores higher: EAT 67.4, RCL 53.7 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 RCL differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where EAT leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. EAT leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are EAT and RCL 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.