Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. QSR scored 56.9, EAT scored 67.4 — EAT leads.
Compare another set
QSR
Restaurant Brands International Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
56.9
$70.95 · $32.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
10.5
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
CheapestQSR17.8x
Fastest growthEAT+7.9%
Strongest balance sheetQSR2.90
Highest qualityEAT81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueQSR-24%
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)
QSR
stronger →← stronger
EAT
76
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
64
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
38
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EAT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
QSR
EAT
$1.6bC+
FCF
$558mC+
+6.5%C+
Rev
+7.9%B
2.90C
D/E
3.96D
17.8xB
P/E
17.8xB
0.88B+
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
QSR
EAT
24% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~0%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+23%
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
+32%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
+47%
10-yr DCF upside
+8%
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
QSR
Why this score
Raising its dividend
EAT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
QSRRestaurant Brands International Inc.
Restaurants · $70.95 · beta 0.54
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $32.5b. 13% off the 52-week high of $81.96. PEG 0.88 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $85.88 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 44% — 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.
Risk
D/E 2.90 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer.
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 QSR and EAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 10.5 points in favor of EAT. The widest single difference is Value, where EAT leads by 13.5 points.
ValueQSR 38.2 · EAT 51.7EAT +13.5
GrowthQSR 63.6 · EAT 73.4EAT +9.8
QualityQSR 76.0 · EAT 80.8EAT +4.8
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 QSR the better stock?
EAT scores higher: EAT 67.4, QSR 56.9 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 QSR differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EAT leads by 14 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 QSR 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.