COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
LVS vs YUMC
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LVS scored 68.0, YUMC scored 74.5 — YUMC leads.
Compare another set
LVS
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
68
$47.03 · $30.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.5
YUMC leads
YUMC
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
74.5
$49.52 · $16.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestYUMC18.1x
- 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
YUMC
92
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
75
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
LVS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LVS
YUMC
$2.7bB
FCF
$940mC+
+18.1%B+
Rev
+8.8%B
—
D/E
0.38A-
18.2xB
P/E
18.1xB
1.12B+
PEG
1.19B+
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
YUMC
48% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
4% below
~-6%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+66%
1-yr DCF upside
-9%
+90%
5-yr DCF upside
+4%
+134%
10-yr DCF upside
+28%
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
YUMC
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
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.
YUMCYum China Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Restaurants · market cap $16.9b. 15% off the 52-week high of $58.39. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $62.05 (implying +25% upside).
Moat
ROE 18% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
YUMC leads LVS by 7.9 points (74.5 to 66.6). A contrarian could still prefer LVS, which trades about 48% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. All screen as growth-type names but sit in different sectors (Resorts & Casinos versus Restaurants), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 YUMC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.5 points in favor of YUMC. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthLVS 50.0 · YUMC 75.4YUMC +25.4
- QualityLVS 92.3 · YUMC 84.0LVS +8.3
- ValueLVS 68.0 · YUMC 65.3level
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.