Restaurants
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
NATH vs JACK vs WEN vs RRGB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Restaurants
Restaurants
Restaurants
NATH vs JACK vs WEN vs RRGB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants | Restaurants |
| Market Cap | $952M | $266M | $1.32B | $81M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $158M | $1.35B | $2.21B | $1.21B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $21M | $-69M | $186M | $-23M |
| Gross Margin | 29.4% | 27.6% | 35.6% | 26.8% |
| Operating Margin | 20.1% | -2.8% | 16.8% | 0.2% |
| Forward P/E | 17.3x | 4.0x | 12.1x | — |
| Total Debt | $56M | $3.12B | $4.09B | $514M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $28M | $52M | $451M | $20M |
NATH vs JACK vs WEN vs RRGB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nathan's Famous, In… (NATH) | 100 | 181.1 | +81.1% |
| Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK) | 100 | 20.7 | -79.3% |
| The Wendy's Company (WEN) | 100 | 32.7 | -67.3% |
| Red Robin Gourmet B… (RRGB) | 100 | 26.5 | -73.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NATH vs JACK vs WEN vs RRGB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NATH carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 6.9%, EPS growth 22.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 8.9%
- 163.6% 10Y total return vs WEN's 10.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.52, current ratio 2.69x
- 6.9% revenue growth vs JACK's -6.7%
JACK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value is your priority.
- Better valuation composite
WEN is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.52, yield 14.3%
- PEG 1.16 vs NATH's 1.33
- Beta 0.52, yield 14.3%, current ratio 1.85x
- 14.3% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs NATH's 2.0%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
RRGB is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +34.9% vs JACK's -47.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 6.9% revenue growth vs JACK's -6.7% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 13.6% margin vs JACK's -5.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.52 vs RRGB's 2.10 | |
| Dividends | 14.3% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs NATH's 2.0%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +34.9% vs JACK's -47.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 42.1% ROA vs RRGB's -4.1%, ROIC 227.7% vs 0.5% |
NATH vs JACK vs WEN vs RRGB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NATH vs JACK vs WEN vs RRGB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NATH leads in 4 of 6 categories
JACK leads 1 • WEN leads 1 • RRGB leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NATH leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WEN is the larger business by revenue, generating $2.2B annually — 14.0x NATH's $158M. NATH is the more profitable business, keeping 13.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to JACK's -5.2%. On growth, NATH holds the edge at +8.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $158M | $1.3B | $2.2B | $1.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $33M | $16M | $530M | $54M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $21M | -$69M | $186M | -$23M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $22M | -$10M | $238M | $6M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +29.4% | +27.6% | +35.6% | +26.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.1% | -2.8% | +16.8% | +0.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +13.6% | -5.2% | +8.4% | -1.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +14.0% | -0.7% | +10.8% | +0.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +8.9% | -25.5% | -3.0% | -5.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -31.8% | +33.7% | -8.0% | +77.4% |
Valuation Metrics
JACK leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 7.3x trailing earnings, WEN trades at a 58% valuation discount to NATH's 17.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), WEN offers better value at 0.71x vs NATH's 1.33x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $952M | $266M | $1.3B | $81M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $980M | $3.3B | $5.0B | $575M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 17.29x | -3.29x | 7.32x | -2.80x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 4.03x | 12.07x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.33x | — | 0.71x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 26.18x | 82.92x | 9.38x | 10.66x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 6.43x | 0.18x | 0.59x | 0.07x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | — | 5.51x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 38.07x | 3.58x | 5.07x | 13.00x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NATH leads this category, winning 7 of 7 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NATH scores 6/9 vs JACK's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | — | +170.4% | — |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +42.1% | -2.7% | +3.7% | -4.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +2.3% | -0.6% | +7.1% | +0.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +104.3% | -0.8% | +7.9% | +0.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | — | 15.78x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $28M | $3.1B | $3.6B | $494M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $28M | $52M | $451M | $20M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $56M | $3.1B | $4.1B | $514M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 11.11x | -0.51x | 2.86x | 0.26x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NATH leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NATH five years ago would be worth $17,213 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,032 for RRGB. Over the past 12 months, RRGB leads with a +34.9% total return vs JACK's -47.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NATH at 14.6% vs JACK's -42.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +10.9% | -25.9% | -13.2% | -11.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +7.2% | -47.8% | -36.1% | +34.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +50.5% | -81.2% | -58.4% | -70.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +72.1% | -82.8% | -53.5% | -89.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +163.6% | -59.5% | +10.9% | -94.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +14.6% | -42.7% | -25.3% | -33.4% |
Risk & Volatility
NATH leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NATH is the less volatile stock with a 0.52 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RRGB's 2.10 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NATH currently trades 85.6% from its 52-week high vs RRGB's 46.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.52x | 1.69x | 0.52x | 2.10x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $118.50 | $29.40 | $12.52 | $7.89 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $88.67 | $8.91 | $6.37 | $2.46 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +85.6% | +47.2% | +55.5% | +46.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 56.3 | 58.4 | 42.4 | 51.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 24K | 837K | 7.8M | 384K |
Analyst Outlook
WEN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: JACK as "Hold", WEN as "Hold", RRGB as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 90.7% upside for RRGB (target: $7) vs 11.2% for WEN (target: $8). For income investors, WEN offers the higher dividend yield at 14.31% vs NATH's 1.97%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $19.92 | $7.73 | $7.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 41 | 51 | 38 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.0% | +6.3% | +14.3% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 4 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.00 | $0.87 | $0.99 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.9% | +5.8% | 0.0% |
NATH leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). JACK leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics).
NATH vs JACK vs WEN vs RRGB: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Nathan's Famous, Inc.
(NATH) is the stronger pick with 6. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 7% for Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK). The Wendy's Company (WEN) offers the better valuation at 7. 3x trailing P/E (12. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK) a "Hold" — based on 41 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 — NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB?
On trailing P/E, The Wendy's Company (WEN) is the cheapest at 7.
3x versus Nathan's Famous, Inc. at 17. 3x. On forward P/E, Jack in the Box Inc. is actually cheaper at 4. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB?
Over the past 5 years, Nathan's Famous, Inc.
(NATH) delivered a total return of +72. 1%, compared to -89. 7% for Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (RRGB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NATH returned +163. 6% versus RRGB's -94. 4%. 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 — NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Nathan's Famous, Inc.
(NATH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 52β versus Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. 's 2. 10β — meaning RRGB is approximately 304% more volatile than NATH relative to the S&P 500.
05Which is growing faster — NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Nathan's Famous, Inc.
(NATH) is pulling ahead at 6. 9% versus -6. 7% for Jack in the Box Inc. (JACK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. grew EPS 73. 4% year-over-year, compared to -127. 6% for Jack in the Box Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NATH leads at 8. 9% 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 — NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB?
Nathan's Famous, Inc.
(NATH) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 2% net margin versus -5. 5% for Jack in the Box Inc. — meaning it keeps 16. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NATH leads at 24. 6% versus -1. 2% for JACK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RRGB leads at 68. 0%, 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 NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Jack in the Box Inc.
(JACK) trades at 4. 0x forward P/E versus 12. 1x for The Wendy's Company — 8. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for RRGB: 90. 7% to $7. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB?
In this comparison, WEN (14.
3% yield), JACK (6. 3% yield), NATH (2. 0% yield) pay a dividend. RRGB does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NATH or JACK or WEN or RRGB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Nathan's Famous, Inc.
(NATH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 52), 2. 0% yield, +163. 6% 10Y return). Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (RRGB) carries a higher beta of 2. 10 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NATH: +163. 6%, RRGB: -94. 4%), 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 NATH and JACK and WEN and RRGB?
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: NATH is a small-cap deep-value stock; JACK is a small-cap income-oriented stock; WEN is a small-cap deep-value stock; RRGB is a small-cap quality compounder stock. NATH, JACK, WEN pay a dividend while RRGB 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.