Is YUMC or SBUX the better stock?

YUMC scores higher: YUMC 74.0, SBUX 47.4 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 SBUX differ most?

The widest gap is value, where YUMC leads by 36 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 SBUX 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.

COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026

SBUX vs YUMC

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. SBUX scored 47.4, YUMC scored 74.0 — YUMC leads.

Compare another set

SBUX

Starbucks Corporation

Restaurants · Quality-Growth

47.4

$107.49 · $122.5B

fundamentals as of Jun 2026

Score gap

26.6

YUMC leads

YUMC

Yum China Holdings, Inc.

Restaurants · Quality-Growth

$48.92 · $16.7B

fundamentals as of Jun 2026

At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules

CheapestYUMC18.1x
Fastest growthYUMC+8.8%
Highest qualityYUMC84 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueYUMC-5%

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)

SBUX

stronger →← stronger

YUMC

Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet

Growthrevenue & earnings expansion

Valuevaluation vs sector peers

YUMC is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.

Fundamentals, head-to-head

SBUX

YUMC

$3.6bB

FCF

$940mC+

+4.5%C+

Rev

+8.8%B

—

D/E

0.38A-

61.8xD

P/E

18.1xB

1.30B

PEG

1.24B

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

SBUX

YUMC

53% above

Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper

5% below

~23%/yr

Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in

~8%/yr

-48%

1-yr DCF upside

-8%

-35%

5-yr DCF upside

+6%

-10%

10-yr DCF upside

+30%

The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.

Model signals

SBUX

YUMC

Why this score

Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns

The companies

SBUXStarbucks Corporation

Restaurants · $107.49 · beta 0.97

Why now

Restaurants · market cap $122.5b. Trading near 52-week high of $110.51 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $112.23 (implying +4% upside).

Moat

FCF converts 184% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $122.5b 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 61.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. ROE -26% 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 · $48.92 · beta 0.08

Why now

Restaurants · market cap $16.7b. 16% off the 52-week high of $58.39. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $62.05 (implying +27% upside).

Moat

ROE 18% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.

Risk

Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.

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 SBUX and YUMC diverge

On the headline score the gap is 26.6 points in favor of YUMC. The widest single difference is Value, where YUMC leads by 36.3 points.

ValueSBUX 27.7 · YUMC 64.0YUMC +36.3
QualitySBUX 57.9 · YUMC 83.9YUMC +26.0
GrowthSBUX 66.2 · YUMC 75.4YUMC +9.2

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.