Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. WING scored 64.4, EAT scored 67.4 — EAT leads.
Compare another set
WING
Wingstop Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
64.4
$122.26 · $3.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.0
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
CheapestEAT17.8x
Fastest growthEAT+7.9%
Highest qualityWING82 / 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)
WING
stronger →← stronger
EAT
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
72
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
46
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
EAT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
WING
EAT
$128mC
FCF
$558mC+
+7.6%B
Rev
+7.9%B
Negative equity
D/E
3.96D
29.0xC
P/E
17.8xB
1.57C+
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
WING
EAT
98% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~32%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
-59%
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
-50%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
-34%
10-yr DCF upside
+8%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
WING
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
EAT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
WINGWingstop Inc.
Restaurants · $122.26 · beta 1.81
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $3.3b. Down 60% from 52-week high of $302.80 — deep drawdown territory. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $196.08 (implying +60% 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.
Risk
Down 60% 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.
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 WING and EAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.0 points in favor of EAT. The widest single difference is Value, where EAT leads by 6.1 points.
ValueWING 45.6 · EAT 51.7EAT +6.1
GrowthWING 71.7 · EAT 73.4level
QualityWING 81.5 · EAT 80.8level
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 WING the better stock?
EAT scores higher: EAT 67.4, WING 64.4 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 EAT and WING differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EAT leads by 6 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are EAT and WING 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.