CAVA vs TXRH

For growth investors, Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

(TXRH) is the stronger pick with 9. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -12. 0% for CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA). Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (TXRH) offers the better valuation at 25. 9x trailing P/E (25. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) a "Buy" — based on 23 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

(TXRH) is the cheapest at 25. 9x versus CAVA Group, Inc. at 156. 5x. On forward P/E, Texas Roadhouse, Inc. is actually cheaper at 25. 0x.

Over the past 5 years, CAVA Group, Inc.

(CAVA) delivered a total return of +93. 1%, compared to +61. 6% for Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (TXRH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TXRH returned +288. 0% versus CAVA's +93. 1%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

(TXRH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 70β versus CAVA Group, Inc. 's 1. 83β — meaning CAVA is approximately 162% more volatile than TXRH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 60% versus 127% for Texas Roadhouse, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

(TXRH) is pulling ahead at 9. 4% versus -12. 0% for CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Texas Roadhouse, Inc. grew EPS -5. 7% year-over-year, compared to -50. 9% for CAVA Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CAVA leads at 14. 5% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

CAVA Group, Inc.

(CAVA) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 5% net margin versus 6. 9% for Texas Roadhouse, Inc. — meaning it keeps 7. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TXRH leads at 8. 6% versus 6. 5% for CAVA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CAVA leads at 67. 4%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

(TXRH) trades at 25. 0x forward P/E versus 161. 5x for CAVA Group, Inc. — 136. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TXRH: 21. 3% to $191. 64.

In this comparison, TXRH (1.

7% yield) pays a dividend. CAVA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Texas Roadhouse, Inc.

(TXRH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 70), 1. 7% yield, +288. 0% 10Y return). CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) carries a higher beta of 1. 83 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (TXRH: +288. 0%, CAVA: +93. 1%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

TXRH pays a dividend while CAVA does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.