COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
TXRH vs WING
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TXRH scored 47.0, WING scored 65.1 — WING leads.
Compare another set
TXRH
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
47
$205.29 · $13.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
18.1
WING leads
WING
Wingstop Inc.
65.1
$116.84 · $3.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestWING27.3x
- Fastest growthTXRH+9.9%
- Highest qualityTXRH81 / 100
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
WING
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
69
81
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
16
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
TXRH is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TXRH
WING
$406mC
FCF
$128mC
+9.9%B
Rev
+7.6%B
0.69B+
D/E
—
32.7xC
P/E
27.3xC+
2.46C
PEG
1.79C+
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
WING
36% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
91% above
~19%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~31%/yr
-39%
1-yr DCF upside
-57%
-27%
5-yr DCF upside
-48%
-2%
10-yr DCF upside
-31%
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
TXRH
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
WING
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
The companies
TXRHTexas Roadhouse, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $13.5b. 5% off the 52-week high of $216.30. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $217.74 (implying +6% 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trailing P/E 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
WINGWingstop Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $3.2b. Down 66% from 52-week high of $342.10 — deep drawdown territory. 27 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $206.59 (implying +77% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% 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 110% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 66% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.81 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. ROE -15% 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.
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 WING diverge
On the headline score the gap is 18.1 points in favor of WING. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueTXRH 15.7 · WING 52.7WING +37.0
- QualityTXRH 80.9 · WING 69.0TXRH +11.9
- GrowthTXRH 81.5 · WING 75.9TXRH +5.6
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.