Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MAR scored 41.7, EAT scored 67.4 — EAT leads.
Compare another set
MAR
Marriott International, Inc.
Lodging · Quality-Growth
41.7
$365.88 · $95.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
25.7
EAT leads
EAT
Brinker International, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
67.4
$193.87 · $8.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEAT17.8x
Fastest growthEAT+7.9%
Highest qualityMAR92 / 100
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)
MAR
stronger →← stronger
EAT
92
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
16
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EAT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MAR
EAT
$3.1bB
FCF
$558mC+
+4.3%C+
Rev
+7.9%B
Negative equity
D/E
3.96D
37.9xD
P/E
17.8xB
1.81C+
PEG
1.70C+
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
MAR
EAT
94% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~26%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
-54%
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
-48%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
-40%
10-yr DCF upside
+8%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MAR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
EAT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
MARMarriott International, Inc.
Lodging · $365.88 · beta 1.17
Why now
Lodging · market cap $95.4b. 11% off the 52-week high of $410.98. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $380.80 (implying +4% upside).
Moat
Net margin 35% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 121% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $95.4b 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
Trailing P/E 38x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 12.9x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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.
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 MAR and EAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 25.7 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.
ValueMAR 15.8 · EAT 51.7EAT +35.9
GrowthMAR 50.0 · EAT 73.4EAT +23.4
QualityMAR 91.8 · EAT 80.8MAR +11.0
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 EAT or MAR the better stock?
EAT scores higher: EAT 67.4, MAR 41.7 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 MAR differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EAT leads by 36 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 MAR 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.