Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FLUT scored 32.2, YUMC scored 77.1 — YUMC leads.
Compare another set
FLUT
Flutter Entertainment plc
Gambling · Quality-Growth
32.2
$79.78 · $13.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
44.9
YUMC leads
YUMC
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
77.1
$42.92 · $14.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthFLUT+15.2%
Strongest balance sheetYUMC0.38
Highest qualityYUMC85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueFLUT-35%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
FLUT
stronger →← stronger
YUMC
29
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
23
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
74
YUMC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FLUT
YUMC
$1.2bC+
FCF
$940mC+
+15.2%B+
Rev
+8.8%B
1.34C+
D/E
0.38A-
0.8xB+
P/S
—
0.19A
PEG
0.93B+
—
P/E
15.3xB+
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
FLUT
YUMC
35% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
7% below
~-1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
+33%
1-yr DCF upside
+1%
+54%
5-yr DCF upside
+8%
+89%
10-yr DCF upside
+18%
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
FLUT
Why this score
Cyclical growth
YUMC
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
FLUTFlutter Entertainment plc
Gambling · $79.78 · beta 1.14
Why now
Gambling · market cap $13.8b. Down 69% from 52-week high of $255.26 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.19 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 32 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $133.06 (implying +67% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -5.0%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 69% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. ROE -10% 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.
Restaurants · $42.92 · beta 0.06
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $14.5b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $58.39 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $61.91 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
ROE 18% is above 15% — 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.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 FLUT and YUMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 44.9 points in favor of YUMC. The widest single difference is Quality, where YUMC leads by 55.9 points.
QualityFLUT 28.9 · YUMC 84.8YUMC +55.9
ValueFLUT 23.2 · YUMC 74.0YUMC +50.8
GrowthFLUT 50.0 · YUMC 73.0YUMC +23.0
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 YUMC or FLUT the better stock?
YUMC scores higher: YUMC 77.1, FLUT 32.2 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 YUMC and FLUT differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where YUMC leads by 56 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. YUMC leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are YUMC and FLUT 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.