Restaurants
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
KRUS vs MCD vs YUM vs TXRH vs CMG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
KRUS vs MCD vs YUM vs TXRH vs CMG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $671M | $201.63B | $43.48B | $10.41B | $43.33B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $292M | $27.45B | $8.48B | $6.06B | $12.14B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-4M | $8.68B | $1.74B | $415M | $1.45B |
| Gross Margin | 11.0% | 44.1% | 45.7% | 18.7% | 36.1% |
| Operating Margin | -2.4% | 46.3% | 31.5% | 8.2% | 15.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | 21.5x | 23.3x | 25.0x | 29.3x |
| Total Debt | $170M | $54.81B | $11.91B | $1.89B | $9.85B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $47M | $774M | $709M | $135M | $351M |
KRUS vs MCD vs YUM vs TXRH vs CMG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kura Sushi USA, Inc. (KRUS) | 100 | 385.9 | +285.9% |
| McDonald's Corporat… (MCD) | 100 | 152.2 | +52.2% |
| Yum! Brands, Inc. (YUM) | 100 | 175.3 | +75.3% |
| Texas Roadhouse, In… (TXRH) | 100 | 304.6 | +204.6% |
| Chipotle Mexican Gr… (CMG) | 100 | 165.7 | +65.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: KRUS vs MCD vs YUM vs TXRH vs CMG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
KRUS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 18.9%, EPS growth 79.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 26.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.36, Low D/E 73.6%, current ratio 1.76x
- 18.9% revenue growth vs MCD's 3.7%
MCD carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 27 yrs, beta 0.11, yield 2.5%
- Beta 0.11, yield 2.5%, current ratio 0.95x
- Lower P/E (21.5x vs 25.0x)
- 31.6% margin vs KRUS's -1.4%
YUM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum and efficiency is your priority.
- +7.1% vs CMG's -35.6%
- 22.8% ROA vs KRUS's -0.9%, ROIC 48.1% vs -1.2%
TXRH is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 288.0% 10Y total return vs YUM's 200.9%
CMG is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.83 vs MCD's 2.81
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.9% revenue growth vs MCD's 3.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (21.5x vs 25.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.6% margin vs KRUS's -1.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.11 vs KRUS's 1.36 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 27-year raise streak, vs TXRH's 1.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +7.1% vs CMG's -35.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 22.8% ROA vs KRUS's -0.9%, ROIC 48.1% vs -1.2% |
KRUS vs MCD vs YUM vs TXRH vs CMG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
KRUS vs MCD vs YUM vs TXRH vs CMG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
TXRH leads in 2 of 6 categories
MCD leads 1 • KRUS leads 0 • YUM leads 0 • CMG leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — MCD and YUM each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCD is the larger business by revenue, generating $27.4B annually — 94.1x KRUS's $292M. MCD is the more profitable business, keeping 31.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to KRUS's -1.4%. On growth, YUM holds the edge at +15.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $292M | $27.4B | $8.5B | $6.1B | $12.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $8M | $14.4B | $2.8B | $709M | $2.3B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$4M | $8.7B | $1.7B | $415M | $1.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$28M | $7.2B | $1.6B | $441M | $1.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +11.0% | +44.1% | +45.7% | +18.7% | +36.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.4% | +46.3% | +31.5% | +8.2% | +15.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -1.4% | +31.6% | +20.5% | +6.8% | +12.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -9.5% | +26.2% | +19.4% | +7.3% | +12.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +14.0% | +9.4% | +15.2% | +12.8% | +7.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -196.9% | +6.9% | +72.2% | +10.0% | -17.9% |
Valuation Metrics
TXRH leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 23.7x trailing earnings, MCD trades at a 19% valuation discount to CMG's 29.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), TXRH offers better value at 0.38x vs YUM's 2.08x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $671M | $201.6B | $43.5B | $10.4B | $43.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $793M | $255.7B | $54.7B | $12.2B | $52.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -351.88x | 23.74x | 28.29x | 25.89x | 29.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 21.51x | 23.30x | 25.05x | 29.29x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.74x | 2.08x | 0.38x | 0.82x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 85.45x | 17.57x | 19.98x | 17.15x | 22.25x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.37x | 7.50x | 5.29x | 1.77x | 3.63x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.90x | — | — | 7.09x | 15.78x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 28.06x | 26.53x | 30.44x | 29.93x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — KRUS and YUM each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CMG delivers a 48.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $48 in annual profit, vs $-2 for KRUS. KRUS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.74x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CMG's 3.48x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCD scores 7/9 vs TXRH's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -1.7% | — | — | +37.4% | +48.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.9% | +14.5% | +22.8% | +12.2% | +16.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -1.2% | +18.7% | +48.1% | +14.5% | +15.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -1.4% | +23.3% | +41.7% | +20.1% | +25.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.74x | — | — | 1.27x | 3.48x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $123M | $54.0B | $11.2B | $1.8B | $9.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $47M | $774M | $709M | $135M | $351M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $170M | $54.8B | $11.9B | $1.9B | $9.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -50.08x | 6.09x | 5.26x | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
TXRH leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in TXRH five years ago would be worth $16,160 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11,666 for CMG. Over the past 12 months, YUM leads with a +7.1% total return vs CMG's -35.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TXRH at 15.4% vs CMG's -6.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +3.8% | -5.8% | +5.0% | -7.4% | -11.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -6.9% | -8.6% | +7.1% | -6.2% | -35.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -12.2% | +2.5% | +21.1% | +53.6% | -18.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +57.8% | +34.3% | +40.0% | +61.6% | +16.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +187.1% | +157.7% | +200.9% | +288.0% | +267.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -4.2% | +0.8% | +6.6% | +15.4% | -6.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MCD and YUM each lead in 1 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 KRUS's 1.36 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. YUM currently trades 92.9% from its 52-week high vs CMG's 56.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.36x | 0.11x | 0.19x | 0.70x | 1.11x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $95.98 | $341.75 | $169.39 | $199.99 | $58.42 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $42.62 | $282.15 | $137.33 | $153.82 | $29.75 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +58.7% | +83.0% | +92.9% | +79.0% | +56.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 43.5 | 30.9 | 44.9 | 45.7 | 43.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 308K | 3.0M | 1.6M | 983K | 14.5M |
Analyst Outlook
MCD leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: KRUS as "Buy", MCD as "Buy", YUM as "Hold", TXRH as "Hold", CMG as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 31.4% upside for CMG (target: $44) vs 10.9% for YUM (target: $174). For income investors, MCD offers the higher dividend yield at 2.52% vs TXRH's 1.72%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $73.40 | $352.25 | $174.38 | $191.64 | $43.72 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 62 | 51 | 43 | 67 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.5% | +1.8% | +1.7% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 27 | 8 | 5 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $7.14 | $2.84 | $2.71 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.0% | +1.3% | +1.4% | +5.6% |
TXRH leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). MCD leads in 1 (Analyst Outlook). 3 tied.
KRUS vs MCD vs YUM vs TXRH vs CMG: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Kura Sushi USA, Inc.
(KRUS) is the stronger pick with 18. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 7% for McDonald's Corporation (MCD). McDonald's Corporation (MCD) offers the better valuation at 23. 7x trailing P/E (21. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Kura Sushi USA, Inc. (KRUS) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 — KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG?
On trailing P/E, McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the cheapest at 23.
7x versus Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. at 29. 2x. On forward P/E, McDonald's Corporation is actually cheaper at 21. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. wins at 0. 83x versus McDonald's Corporation's 2. 81x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG?
Over the past 5 years, Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
(TXRH) delivered a total return of +61. 6%, compared to +16. 7% for Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TXRH returned +288. 0% versus MCD's +157. 7%. 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 — KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
11β versus Kura Sushi USA, Inc. 's 1. 36β — meaning KRUS is approximately 1125% more volatile than MCD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Kura Sushi USA, Inc. (KRUS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 74% versus 3% for Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Kura Sushi USA, Inc.
(KRUS) is pulling ahead at 18. 9% versus 3. 7% for McDonald's Corporation (MCD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Kura Sushi USA, Inc. grew EPS 79. 7% year-over-year, compared to -5. 7% for Texas Roadhouse, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, KRUS leads at 26. 1% 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 — KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG?
McDonald's Corporation (MCD) is the more profitable company, earning 31.
9% net margin versus -0. 7% for Kura Sushi USA, Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MCD leads at 46. 1% versus -1. 7% for KRUS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MCD leads at 57. 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.
07Is KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG 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, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (CMG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 83x versus McDonald's Corporation's 2. 81x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, McDonald's Corporation (MCD) trades at 21. 5x forward P/E versus 29. 3x for Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. — 7. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CMG: 31. 4% to $43. 72.
08Which pays a better dividend — KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG?
In this comparison, MCD (2.
5% yield), YUM (1. 8% yield), TXRH (1. 7% yield) pay a dividend. KRUS, CMG do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is KRUS or MCD or YUM or TXRH or CMG 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. 5% yield, +157. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MCD: +157. 7%, KRUS: +187. 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.
10What are the main differences between KRUS and MCD and YUM and TXRH and CMG?
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: KRUS is a small-cap high-growth stock; MCD is a large-cap quality compounder stock; YUM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; TXRH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; CMG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. MCD, YUM, TXRH pay a dividend while KRUS, CMG do 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.