COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
LVS vs TXRH
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LVS scored 68.0, TXRH scored 47.0 — LVS leads.
Compare another set
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
68
$47.03 · $30.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.0
LVS leads
TXRH
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
47
$205.29 · $13.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestLVS18.2x
- Fastest growthLVS+18.1%
- Highest qualityLVS92 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueLVS-48%
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)
LVS
stronger →← stronger
TXRH
92
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
81
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
16
LVS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LVS
TXRH
$2.7bB
FCF
$406mC
+18.1%B+
Rev
+9.9%B
—
D/E
0.69B+
18.2xB
P/E
32.7xC
1.12B+
PEG
2.46C
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
LVS
TXRH
48% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
36% above
~-6%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~19%/yr
+66%
1-yr DCF upside
-39%
+90%
5-yr DCF upside
-27%
+134%
10-yr DCF upside
-2%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LVS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
- Cyclical growth
TXRH
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
LVSLas Vegas Sands Corp.
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $30.5b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $70.45 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $59.07 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 157% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
TXRHTexas Roadhouse, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $13.5b. 5% off the 52-week high of $216.30. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $217.74 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 LVS and TXRH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.0 points in favor of LVS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueLVS 68.0 · TXRH 15.7LVS +52.3
- GrowthLVS 50.0 · TXRH 81.5TXRH +31.5
- QualityLVS 92.3 · TXRH 80.9LVS +11.4
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.