Restaurants
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN vs CAKE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN vs CAKE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $12M | $6.27B | $10.41B | $678M | $3.03B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $217M | $5.73B | $6.06B | $3.97B | $3.75B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-1M | $463M | $415M | $22M | $148M |
| Gross Margin | 9.5% | 46.0% | 18.7% | 70.2% | 78.3% |
| Operating Margin | -4.2% | 10.4% | 8.2% | 1.1% | 5.0% |
| Forward P/E | 17.5x | 12.9x | 28.1x | 9.2x | 15.2x |
| Total Debt | $163M | $1.69B | $1.89B | $3.07B | $3.46B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $24M | $19M | $135M | $59M | $216M |
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN vs CAKE — 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 | 13.8 | -86.2% |
| Brinker Internation… (EAT) | 100 | 378.9 | +278.9% |
| Texas Roadhouse, In… (TXRH) | 100 | 158.0 | +58.0% |
| Bloomin' Brands, In… (BLMN) | 100 | 30.2 | -69.8% |
| The Cheesecake Fact… (CAKE) | 100 | 178.3 | +78.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN vs CAKE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GENK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and defensive is your priority.
- 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 0.19 vs TXRH's 0.41
- 21.9% revenue growth vs BLMN's 0.1%
- 8.1% margin vs GENK's -0.6%
TXRH ranks third and is worth considering specifically for 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 clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (9.2x vs 15.2x)
CAKE is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +23.5% 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 (9.2x vs 15.2x) | |
| 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) | +23.5% 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 vs CAKE — 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 vs CAKE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EAT leads in 3 of 6 categories
GENK leads 1 • TXRH leads 0 • BLMN leads 0 • CAKE leads 0 • 2 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 | $3.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4M | $819M | $709M | $225M | $296M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$1M | $463M | $415M | $22M | $148M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$19M | $504M | $441M | $119M | $155M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +9.5% | +46.0% | +18.7% | +70.2% | +78.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -4.2% | +10.4% | +8.2% | +1.1% | +5.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -0.6% | +8.1% | +6.8% | +0.5% | +4.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -8.5% | +8.8% | +7.3% | +3.0% | +4.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.7% | +3.2% | +12.8% | +1.0% | +4.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -12.0% | +12.1% | +10.0% | +30.0% | -28.6% |
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 | $3.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $151M | $7.9B | $12.2B | $3.7B | $6.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 17.54x | 17.58x | 25.89x | 125.99x | 19.80x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 12.89x | 28.11x | 9.23x | 15.23x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.26x | 0.38x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.69x | 11.06x | 17.15x | 10.83x | 21.19x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.06x | 1.17x | 1.77x | 0.17x | 0.81x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.24x | 18.18x | 7.09x | 2.01x | 6.74x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 15.17x | 30.44x | 7.00x | 19.55x |
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% | +37.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.6% | +17.0% | +12.2% | +0.7% | +4.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +0.2% | +19.1% | +14.5% | +4.3% | +4.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.3% | +25.8% | +20.1% | +6.9% | +7.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 3.69x | 4.57x | 1.27x | 9.10x | 7.93x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $139M | $1.7B | $1.8B | $3.0B | $3.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $24M | $19M | $135M | $59M | $216M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $163M | $1.7B | $1.9B | $3.1B | $3.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -15.38x | 18.61x | — | 1.06x | 16.15x |
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, CAKE leads with a +23.5% 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% | +15.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -48.6% | +5.3% | -6.2% | +13.6% | +23.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.9% | +295.8% | +53.6% | -56.9% | +92.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.9% | +125.8% | +61.6% | -64.0% | +2.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.9% | +229.9% | +288.0% | -36.8% | +35.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -46.8% | +58.2% | +15.4% | -24.5% | +24.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TXRH and CAKE each lead in 1 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. CAKE currently trades 87.2% 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 | 1.68x | 1.14x | 0.75x | 2.20x | 1.08x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.26 | $187.12 | $199.99 | $10.70 | $69.70 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.43 | $100.30 | $153.82 | $5.19 | $43.07 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +43.3% | +78.2% | +79.0% | +74.3% | +87.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 74.5 | 50.6 | 45.7 | 73.3 | 50.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 46K | 1.2M | 983K | 2.8M | 1.2M |
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", CAKE as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 26.1% upside for EAT (target: $184) vs 7.7% for CAKE (target: $66). 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 | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $184.46 | $188.36 | $9.13 | $65.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 47 | 43 | 28 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +7.9% | — | +1.7% | +5.6% | +1.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.18 | — | $2.71 | $0.45 | $1.08 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.4% | +1.4% | 0.0% | +5.1% |
EAT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). GENK leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
GENK vs EAT vs TXRH vs BLMN vs CAKE: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GENK or EAT or TXRH or BLMN or CAKE 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 or CAKE?
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. 2x — 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. 19x versus Texas Roadhouse, Inc. 's 0. 41x — 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 or CAKE?
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 +331. 7% versus GENK's -84. 6%. 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 or CAKE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
(TXRH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 75β versus Bloomin' Brands, Inc. 's 2. 20β — meaning BLMN is approximately 194% 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 or CAKE?
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 or CAKE?
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 — CAKE leads at 78. 3%, 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 or CAKE 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. 19x versus Texas Roadhouse, Inc. 's 0. 41x. 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. 2x forward P/E versus 28. 1x for Texas Roadhouse, Inc. — 18. 9x 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 or CAKE?
In this comparison, GENK (7.
9% yield), BLMN (5. 6% yield), CAKE (1. 8% 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 or CAKE 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. 75), 1. 7% yield, +331. 7% 10Y return). Bloomin' Brands, Inc. (BLMN) carries a higher beta of 2. 20 — 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: +331. 7%, BLMN: -35. 9%), 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 and CAKE?
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; CAKE is a small-cap quality compounder stock. GENK, TXRH, BLMN, CAKE 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.