Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. YUMC scored 77.1, EAT scored 67.4 — YUMC leads.
Compare another set
YUMC
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
Restaurants · Quality-Growth
77.1
$42.92 · $14.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.7
YUMC 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
CheapestYUMC15.3x
Fastest growthYUMC+8.8%
Strongest balance sheetYUMC0.38
Highest qualityYUMC85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueYUMC-7%
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)
YUMC
stronger →← stronger
EAT
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
73
74
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
YUMC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
YUMC
EAT
$940mC+
FCF
$558mC+
+8.8%B
Rev
+7.9%B
0.38A-
D/E
3.96D
15.3xB+
P/E
17.8xB
0.93B+
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
YUMC
EAT
7% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+1%
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
+8%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
+18%
10-yr DCF upside
+8%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
YUMC
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
EAT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
YUMCYum China Holdings, Inc.
Restaurants · $42.92 · beta 0.06
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $14.5b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $58.39 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $61.91 (implying +44% upside).
Moat
ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 YUMC and EAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.7 points in favor of YUMC. The widest single difference is Value, where YUMC leads by 22.3 points.
ValueYUMC 74.0 · EAT 51.7YUMC +22.3
QualityYUMC 84.8 · EAT 80.8YUMC +4.0
GrowthYUMC 73.0 · EAT 73.4level
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 YUMC or EAT the better stock?
YUMC scores higher: YUMC 77.1, 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 YUMC and EAT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where YUMC leads by 22 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. YUMC also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are YUMC 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.