Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NCLH scored 45.9, EAT scored 67.4 — EAT leads.
Compare another set
NCLH
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
Travel Services · Quality-Growth
45.9
$15.57 · $7.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.5
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
Fastest growthEAT+7.9%
Strongest balance sheetEAT3.96
Highest qualityEAT81 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
NCLH
stronger →← stronger
EAT
60
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
39
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
41
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EAT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NCLH
EAT
-$1.2bF
FCF
$558mC+
+6.2%C+
Rev
+7.9%B
6.21D
D/E
3.96D
0.7xB+
P/S
—
—
PEG
1.70C+
—
P/E
17.8xB
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
NCLH
EAT
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
—
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+8%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
NCLH
Why this score
Durable high returns
EAT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
NCLHNorwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
Travel Services · $15.57 · beta 1.96
Why now
Travel Services · market cap $7.1b. Down 38% from 52-week high of $25.13 — deep drawdown territory. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $19.92 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
ROE 30% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
D/E 6.21 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Free cash flow is negative (-$1.2b) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Down 38% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 NCLH and EAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.5 points in favor of EAT. The widest single difference is Growth, where EAT leads by 34.6 points.
GrowthNCLH 38.8 · EAT 73.4EAT +34.6
QualityNCLH 60.4 · EAT 80.8EAT +20.4
ValueNCLH 41.2 · EAT 51.7EAT +10.5
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 NCLH the better stock?
EAT scores higher: EAT 67.4, NCLH 45.9 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 NCLH differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where EAT leads by 35 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 NCLH 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.