COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
LVS vs YUM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LVS scored 68.0, YUM scored 54.9 — LVS leads.
Compare another set
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
68
$47.03 · $30.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
13.1
LVS leads
YUM
Yum! Brands, Inc.
54.9
$157.35 · $42.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestLVS18.2x
- Fastest growthLVS+18.1%
- Highest qualityLVS92 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueLVS-48%
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)
LVS
stronger →← stronger
YUM
92
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
53
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
42
LVS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LVS
YUM
$2.7bB
FCF
$1.7bC+
+18.1%B+
Rev
+10.3%B
18.2xB
P/E
19.3xB
1.12B+
PEG
2.06C
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
LVS
YUM
48% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
9% below
~-6%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+66%
1-yr DCF upside
-3%
+90%
5-yr DCF upside
+9%
+134%
10-yr DCF upside
+32%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LVS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
- Cyclical growth
YUM
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
The companies
LVSLas Vegas Sands Corp.
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $30.5b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $70.45 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $59.07 (implying +26% 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
YUMYum! Brands, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $42.9b. 8% off the 52-week high of $170.14. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $173.38 (implying +10% 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
ROE -31% 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 LVS and YUM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 13.1 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.
- ValueLVS 68.0 · YUM 42.3LVS +25.7
- QualityLVS 92.3 · YUM 73.5LVS +18.8
- GrowthLVS 50.0 · YUM 53.4YUM +3.4
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.