Restaurants
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
EAT vs MCD
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Restaurants
EAT vs MCD — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $6.31B | $202.32B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $5.73B | $26.26B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $463M | $8.41B |
| Gross Margin | 46.0% | 57.4% |
| Operating Margin | 10.4% | 46.1% |
| Forward P/E | 13.7x | 21.5x |
| Total Debt | $1.69B | $51.95B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19M | $1.08B |
EAT vs MCD — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brinker Internation… (EAT) | 100 | 558.3 | +458.3% |
| McDonald's Corporat… (MCD) | 100 | 152.5 | +52.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EAT vs MCD
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
EAT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 21.9%, EPS growth 144.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.3%
- 236.3% 10Y total return vs MCD's 158.5%
- PEG 0.20 vs MCD's 2.82
MCD is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 26 yrs, beta 0.11, yield 2.4%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.11, current ratio 1.19x
- Beta 0.11, yield 2.4%, current ratio 1.19x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 21.9% revenue growth vs MCD's 1.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.7x vs 21.5x), PEG 0.20 vs 2.82 | |
| Quality / Margins | 32.0% margin vs EAT's 8.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.11 vs EAT's 1.12 | |
| Dividends | 2.4% yield; 26-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +9.8% vs MCD's -8.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 17.0% ROA vs MCD's 13.9%, ROIC 19.1% vs 19.3% |
EAT vs MCD — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
EAT vs MCD — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCD leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCD is the larger business by revenue, generating $26.3B annually — 4.6x EAT's $5.7B. MCD is the more profitable business, keeping 32.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to EAT's 8.1%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $5.7B | $26.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $819M | $14.3B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $463M | $8.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $504M | $7.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +46.0% | +57.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +10.4% | +46.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +8.1% | +32.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +8.8% | +28.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +3.2% | +3.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +12.1% | +1.6% |
Valuation Metrics
EAT leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.7x trailing earnings, EAT trades at a 29% valuation discount to MCD's 24.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), EAT offers better value at 0.26x vs MCD's 3.26x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.3B | $202.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $8.0B | $253.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 17.68x | 24.94x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 13.74x | 21.54x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.26x | 3.26x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.11x | 18.33x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.17x | 7.81x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 18.28x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 15.25x | 30.32x |
Profitability & Efficiency
EAT leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +123.4% | — |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +17.0% | +13.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +19.1% | +19.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +25.8% | +23.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 4.57x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.7B | $50.9B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19M | $1.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.7B | $51.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 18.61x | 7.88x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
EAT leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in EAT five years ago would be worth $23,182 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13,445 for MCD. Over the past 12 months, EAT leads with a +9.8% total return vs MCD's -8.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors EAT at 58.5% vs MCD's 0.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -2.9% | -5.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +9.8% | -8.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +298.0% | +2.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +131.8% | +34.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +236.3% | +158.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +58.5% | +0.9% |
Risk & Volatility
MCD leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MCD is the less volatile stock with a 0.11 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than EAT's 1.12 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MCD currently trades 83.1% from its 52-week high vs EAT's 78.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 0.11x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $187.12 | $341.75 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $100.30 | $282.40 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +78.6% | +83.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.9 | 31.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.2M | 2.9M |
Analyst Outlook
MCD leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates EAT as "Buy" and MCD as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 25.4% upside for EAT (target: $184) vs 24.0% for MCD (target: $352). MCD is the only dividend payer here at 2.37% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $184.46 | $352.25 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 47 | 62 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 26 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $6.75 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.4% | +1.4% |
MCD leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). EAT leads in 3 (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency).
EAT vs MCD: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EAT or MCD a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) is the stronger pick with 21. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 7% for McDonald's Corporation (MCD). Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) offers the better valuation at 17. 7x trailing P/E (13. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) a "Buy" — based on 47 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.
02Which has the better valuation — EAT or MCD?
On trailing P/E, Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) is the cheapest at 17. 7x versus McDonald's Corporation at 24. 9x. On forward P/E, Brinker International, Inc. is actually cheaper at 13. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Brinker International, Inc. wins at 0. 20x versus McDonald's Corporation's 2. 82x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — EAT or MCD?
Over the past 5 years, Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) delivered a total return of +131. 8%, compared to +34. 4% for McDonald's Corporation (MCD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: EAT returned +236. 3% versus MCD's +158. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — EAT or MCD?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
11β versus Brinker International, Inc. 's 1. 12β — meaning EAT is approximately 906% more volatile than MCD relative to the S&P 500.
05Which is growing faster — EAT or MCD?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) is pulling ahead at 21. 9% versus 1. 7% for McDonald's Corporation (MCD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Brinker International, Inc. grew EPS 144. 7% year-over-year, compared to -1. 5% for McDonald's Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, EAT leads at 12. 3% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — EAT or MCD?
McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the more profitable company, earning 31.
7% net margin versus 7. 1% for Brinker International, Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MCD leads at 45. 2% versus 9. 5% for EAT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MCD leads at 56. 8%, 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.
07Is EAT or MCD more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 20x versus McDonald's Corporation's 2. 82x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) trades at 13. 7x forward P/E versus 21. 5x for McDonald's Corporation — 7. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EAT: 25. 4% to $184. 46.
08Which pays a better dividend — EAT or MCD?
In this comparison, MCD (2.
4% yield) pays a dividend. EAT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is EAT or MCD better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
11), 2. 4% yield, +158. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MCD: +158. 5%, EAT: +236. 3%), 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.
10What are the main differences between EAT and MCD?
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.
In terms of investment character: EAT is a small-cap high-growth stock; MCD is a large-cap quality compounder stock. MCD pays a dividend while EAT 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.