Restaurants
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $12M | $6.27B | $10.41B | $678M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $217M | $5.73B | $6.06B | $3.97B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-1M | $463M | $415M | $22M |
| Gross Margin | 9.5% | 46.0% | 18.7% | 70.2% |
| Operating Margin | -4.2% | 10.4% | 8.2% | 1.1% |
| Forward P/E | 17.5x | 13.7x | 25.0x | 9.5x |
| Total Debt | $163M | $1.69B | $1.89B | $3.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $24M | $19M | $135M | $59M |
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| GEN Restaurant Grou… (GENK) | 100 | 13.4 | -86.6% |
| Brinker Internation… (EAT) | 100 | 399.7 | +299.7% |
| Texas Roadhouse, In… (TXRH) | 100 | 140.7 | +40.7% |
| Bloomin' Brands, In… (BLMN) | 100 | 29.6 | -70.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GENK is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.53, yield 7.9%
- Beta 1.53, yield 7.9%, current ratio 0.83x
- 7.9% yield, vs TXRH's 1.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
EAT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 21.9%, EPS growth 144.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 12.3%
- PEG 0.20 vs TXRH's 1.17
- 21.9% revenue growth vs BLMN's 0.1%
- 8.1% margin vs GENK's -0.6%
TXRH is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 288.0% 10Y total return vs EAT's 229.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.70, current ratio 0.50x
- Beta 0.70 vs BLMN's 1.82, lower leverage
BLMN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and momentum is your priority.
- Lower P/E (9.5x vs 25.0x)
- +13.6% vs GENK's -48.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 21.9% revenue growth vs BLMN's 0.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.5x vs 25.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 8.1% margin vs GENK's -0.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs BLMN's 1.82, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 7.9% yield, vs TXRH's 1.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +13.6% vs GENK's -48.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 17.0% ROA vs GENK's -0.6%, ROIC 19.1% vs 0.2% |
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EAT leads in 3 of 6 categories
GENK leads 1 • TXRH leads 1 • BLMN leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
EAT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TXRH is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.1B annually — 27.9x GENK's $217M. EAT is the more profitable business, keeping 8.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GENK's -0.6%. On growth, TXRH holds the edge at +12.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $217M | $5.7B | $6.1B | $4.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4M | $819M | $709M | $225M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$1M | $463M | $415M | $22M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$19M | $504M | $441M | $119M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +9.5% | +46.0% | +18.7% | +70.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -4.2% | +10.4% | +8.2% | +1.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -0.6% | +8.1% | +6.8% | +0.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -8.5% | +8.8% | +7.3% | +3.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.7% | +3.2% | +12.8% | +1.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -12.0% | +12.1% | +10.0% | +30.0% |
Valuation Metrics
GENK leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.5x trailing earnings, GENK trades at a 86% valuation discount to BLMN's 126.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), EAT offers better value at 0.26x vs TXRH's 0.38x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $12M | $6.3B | $10.4B | $678M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $151M | $7.9B | $12.2B | $3.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 17.54x | 17.58x | 25.89x | 125.99x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 13.66x | 25.05x | 9.53x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.26x | 0.38x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.69x | 11.06x | 17.15x | 10.83x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.06x | 1.17x | 1.77x | 0.17x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.24x | 18.18x | 7.09x | 2.01x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 15.17x | 30.44x | 7.00x |
Profitability & Efficiency
EAT leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
EAT delivers a 123.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $123 in annual profit, vs $-3 for GENK. TXRH carries lower financial leverage with a 1.27x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BLMN's 9.10x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), EAT scores 7/9 vs GENK's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -3.2% | +123.4% | +37.4% | +5.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.6% | +17.0% | +12.2% | +0.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +0.2% | +19.1% | +14.5% | +4.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.3% | +25.8% | +20.1% | +6.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 3.69x | 4.57x | 1.27x | 9.10x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $139M | $1.7B | $1.8B | $3.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $24M | $19M | $135M | $59M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $163M | $1.7B | $1.9B | $3.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -15.38x | 18.61x | — | 1.06x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
EAT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in EAT five years ago would be worth $22,577 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,506 for GENK. Over the past 12 months, BLMN leads with a +13.6% total return vs GENK's -48.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors EAT at 58.2% vs GENK's -46.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -1.3% | -3.4% | -7.4% | +24.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -48.6% | +5.3% | -6.2% | +13.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.9% | +295.8% | +53.6% | -56.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.9% | +125.8% | +61.6% | -64.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.9% | +229.9% | +288.0% | -36.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -46.8% | +58.2% | +15.4% | -24.5% |
Risk & Volatility
TXRH leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TXRH is the less volatile stock with a 0.70 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BLMN's 1.82 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TXRH currently trades 79.0% from its 52-week high vs GENK's 43.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.53x | 1.12x | 0.70x | 1.82x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.26 | $187.12 | $199.99 | $10.70 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.43 | $100.30 | $153.82 | $5.19 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +43.3% | +78.2% | +79.0% | +74.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 74.5 | 50.6 | 45.7 | 73.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 46K | 1.2M | 983K | 2.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — GENK and TXRH each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: EAT as "Buy", TXRH as "Hold", BLMN as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 26.1% upside for EAT (target: $184) vs 6.9% for BLMN (target: $9). For income investors, GENK offers the higher dividend yield at 7.94% vs TXRH's 1.72%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $184.46 | $191.64 | $8.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 47 | 43 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +7.9% | — | +1.7% | +5.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.18 | — | $2.71 | $0.45 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.4% | +1.4% | 0.0% |
EAT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). GENK leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 1 tied.
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN 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 0. 1% for Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (BLMN). GEN Restaurant Group, Inc. (GENK) offers the better valuation at 17. 5x trailing P/E, 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 — GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN?
On trailing P/E, GEN Restaurant Group, Inc.
(GENK) is the cheapest at 17. 5x versus Bloomin' Brands, Inc. at 126. 0x. On forward P/E, Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. 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 Texas Roadhouse, Inc. 's 1. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN?
Over the past 5 years, Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) delivered a total return of +125. 8%, compared to -84. 9% for GEN Restaurant Group, Inc. (GENK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TXRH returned +288. 0% versus GENK's -84. 9%. 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 — GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
(TXRH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 70β versus Bloomin' Brands, Inc. 's 1. 82β — meaning BLMN is approximately 161% more volatile than TXRH relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (TXRH) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 127% versus 9% for Bloomin' Brands, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) is pulling ahead at 21. 9% versus 0. 1% for Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (BLMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Brinker International, Inc. grew EPS 144. 7% year-over-year, compared to -5. 7% for Texas Roadhouse, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GENK leads at 14. 0% 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 — GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN?
Brinker International, Inc.
(EAT) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 1% net margin versus 0. 1% for Bloomin' Brands, Inc. — meaning it keeps 7. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EAT leads at 9. 5% versus 0. 2% for GENK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EAT leads at 18. 2%, 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 GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN 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 Texas Roadhouse, Inc. 's 1. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (BLMN) trades at 9. 5x forward P/E versus 25. 0x for Texas Roadhouse, Inc. — 15. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EAT: 26. 1% to $184. 46.
08Which pays a better dividend — GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN?
In this comparison, GENK (7.
9% yield), BLMN (5. 6% yield), TXRH (1. 7% yield) pay a dividend. EAT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN better for a retirement portfolio?
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). Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (BLMN) carries a higher beta of 1. 82 — 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%, BLMN: -36. 8%), 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 GENK and EAT and TXRH and BLMN?
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: GENK is a small-cap high-growth stock; EAT is a small-cap high-growth stock; TXRH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BLMN is a small-cap income-oriented stock. GENK, TXRH, BLMN pay 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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.