Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TXRH scored 64.5, LVS scored 73.5 — LVS leads.
Compare another set
TXRH
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
64.5
$161.50 · $10.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.0
LVS leads
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
Resorts & Casinos · Quality-Growth
73.5
$36.17 · $23.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLVS14.1x
Fastest growthLVS+18.1%
Highest qualityLVS90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLVS-65%
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)
TXRH
stronger →← stronger
LVS
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
76
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
88
LVS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TXRH
LVS
$406mC
FCF
$2.7bB
+9.9%B
Rev
+18.1%B+
0.69B+
D/E
—
26.0xC+
P/E
14.1xB+
1.62C+
PEG
0.77A-
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
TXRH
LVS
9% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
65% below
~14%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-13%/yr
-24%
1-yr DCF upside
+138%
-8%
5-yr DCF upside
+186%
+21%
10-yr DCF upside
+276%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
TXRH
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
LVS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
TXRHTexas Roadhouse, Inc.
Restaurants · $161.50 · beta 0.81
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $10.6b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $216.30 — deep drawdown territory. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $215.04 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
ROE 27% — 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
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.
LVSLas Vegas Sands Corp.
Resorts & Casinos · $36.17 · beta 0.77
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $23.4b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $70.45 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.77 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $58.65 (implying +62% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 157% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 49% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 TXRH and LVS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.0 points in favor of LVS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueTXRH 43.1 · LVS 88.2LVS +45.1
GrowthTXRH 76.0 · LVS 50.0TXRH +26.0
QualityTXRH 82.1 · LVS 90.1LVS +8.0
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 LVS or TXRH the better stock?
LVS scores higher: LVS 73.5, TXRH 64.5 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 LVS and TXRH differ most?
The widest gap is value, where LVS leads by 45 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 LVS and TXRH 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.