Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. YUM scored 71.3, EAT scored 67.4 — YUM leads.
Compare another set
YUM
Yum! Brands, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
71.3
$144.82 · $39.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.9
YUM 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 growthYUM+10.3%
Highest qualityYUM88 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueYUM-9%
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)
YUM
stronger →← stronger
EAT
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
69
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
YUM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
YUM
EAT
$1.7bC+
FCF
$558mC+
+10.3%B
Rev
+7.9%B
Negative equity
D/E
3.96D
18.2xB
P/E
17.8xB
1.83C+
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
YUM
EAT
9% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+2%
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
+9%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
+21%
10-yr DCF upside
+8%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
YUM
Why this score
Raising its dividend
EAT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
YUMYum! Brands, Inc.
Restaurants · $144.82 · beta 0.55
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $39.5b. 15% off the 52-week high of $170.14. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $171.06 (implying +18% upside).
Moat
Net margin 25% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close.
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.
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 YUM and EAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.9 points in favor of YUM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueYUM 60.1 · EAT 51.7YUM +8.4
QualityYUM 87.7 · EAT 80.8YUM +6.9
GrowthYUM 68.8 · EAT 73.4EAT +4.6
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 YUM or EAT the better stock?
YUM scores higher: YUM 71.3, EAT 67.4 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 YUM and EAT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where YUM leads by 8 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 YUM and EAT 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.