Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. SHAK scored 47.7, YUMC scored 77.1 — YUMC leads.
Compare another set
SHAK
Shake Shack Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
47.7
$66.90 · $2.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.4
YUMC leads
YUMC
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
77.1
$42.92 · $14.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthSHAK+17.3%
Strongest balance sheetYUMC0.38
Highest qualityYUMC85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueYUMC-7%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
SHAK
stronger →← stronger
YUMC
46
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
76
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
31
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
74
YUMC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
SHAK
YUMC
-$12mF
FCF
$940mC+
+17.3%B+
Rev
+8.8%B
1.67C+
D/E
0.38A-
1.8xC+
P/S
—
3.45D
PEG
0.93B+
—
P/E
15.3xB+
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
SHAK
YUMC
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
7% below
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
+1%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+8%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+18%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
SHAK
Why this score
Buying back stock
YUMC
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
SHAKShake Shack Inc.
Restaurants · $66.90 · beta 1.68
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $2.9b. Down 38% from 52-week high of $107.46 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $80.71 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$12m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 70.4x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. 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.
YUMCYum China Holdings, Inc.
Restaurants · $42.92 · beta 0.06
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $14.5b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $58.39 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $61.91 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
ROE 18% is above 15% — 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.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 SHAK and YUMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.4 points in favor of YUMC. The widest single difference is Value, where YUMC leads by 43.0 points.
ValueSHAK 31.0 · YUMC 74.0YUMC +43.0
QualitySHAK 46.0 · YUMC 84.8YUMC +38.8
GrowthSHAK 75.9 · YUMC 73.0level
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 YUMC or SHAK the better stock?
YUMC scores higher: YUMC 77.1, SHAK 47.7 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 YUMC and SHAK differ most?
The widest gap is value, where YUMC leads by 43 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. YUMC also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are YUMC and SHAK 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.