COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
EAT vs YETI
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EAT scored 59.2, YETI scored 67.9 — YETI leads.
Compare another set
EAT
Brinker International, Inc.
59.2
$246.06 · $10.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.7
YETI leads
YETI
YETI Holdings, Inc.
67.9
$43.76 · $3.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestYETI19.2x
- Fastest growthEAT+7.9%
- Strongest balance sheetYETI0.42
- Highest qualityYETI90 / 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)
EAT
stronger →← stronger
YETI
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
76
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
35
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
70
YETI is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EAT
YETI
$558mC+
FCF
$257mC
+7.9%B
Rev
+6.2%C+
3.64C
D/E
0.42A-
22.6xB
P/E
19.2xB
1.70C+
PEG
1.27B
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
YETI
3% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
6% above
~14%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~10%/yr
-21%
1-yr DCF upside
-17%
+3%
5-yr DCF upside
-6%
+51%
10-yr DCF upside
+11%
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
YETI
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
- Cyclical growth
The companies
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.
YETIYETI Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Leisure · market cap $3.2b. 19% off the 52-week high of $53.99. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $54.53 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
ROE 29% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 144% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Beta 1.72 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 YETI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.7 points in favor of YETI. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueEAT 34.9 · YETI 69.9YETI +35.0
- GrowthEAT 76.5 · YETI 50.0EAT +26.5
- QualityEAT 77.9 · YETI 89.6YETI +11.7
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.